<div dir="ltr"><br><div>Hi Oscar,</div><div><br></div><div>OK, sorry I misinterpreted your email. I've attached the draft.</div><div><br></div><div>best,</div><div><br></div><div>
Karl</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div><div><div>---<br><div>Karl J. Slifer<div>Assistant Professor</div><div>University of New Hampshire<br><div>Telephone : <a>603-722-0695</a></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Oscar Rondon-Aramayo <<a href="mailto:or@cms.mail.virginia.edu">or@cms.mail.virginia.edu</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
Hi Karl,<br>
<br>
First, I can't open the pdf. It says it's damaged.<br>
<br>
Next, I'm not leaning to going back to the difference of counts. I'm saying<br>
that<br>
whether we present it as an Azz measurement or a b1 one, the only method is<br>
the difference of counts. That is what Steve is saying too.<br>
<br>
To move the proposal forward, I just suggest that we use the estimates of<br>
the drifts of the charge calibration and efficiency stability I mentioned in<br>
my previous e-mail: combined 0.4% to have an absolute error 1/2 of HERMES's<br>
at x = 0.45.<br>
<br>
What we need to confirm from JP or Alexandre is if the BCM's are stable to<br>
~0.3% over a day. According to Dustin, JP claims 1% detector stability over<br>
90 days, so 0.1% in a day is OK.<br>
<br>
I'll explain the issue of the difference of counts in a follow up message.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Oscar<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sat, 4 May 2013 18:47:45 -0400<br>
Karl Slifer <<a href="mailto:karl.slifer@unh.edu">karl.slifer@unh.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hi All,<br>
><br>
> I've posted the updated draft at<br>
><br>
> <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59933793/tensor_b1_v03.pdf">https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59933793/tensor_b1_v03.pdf</a><br>
><br>
> There is some lagtime for implementation, but I think this reflects pretty<br>
> well where our discussion was about 24 hours ago. However, we still need:<br>
><br>
> -updated rates/kin plots from Ellie or Patricia and values for the table<br>
><br>
> -some consensus on how to address Steve's comments.<br>
><br>
> It seems we have three options with time running short.<br>
><br>
> 1) List all possible factors that drift with time and atleast sketch a plan<br>
> to deal with them.<br>
><br>
> 2) go back to difference of counts.<br>
><br>
> 3) Cancel submission and work on this for next PAC.<br>
><br>
> I lean to the first, Oscar leans to the second. I'd very much like to find<br>
> some consensus on this. Am I the only one still nerding it up in front of<br>
> my computer on this beautiful spring day?<br>
><br>
> -Karl<br>
><br>
> PS : If anyone makes suggestions for changes I would very much appreciate<br>
> that they be in a form that I can put into the document quickly.<br>
><br>
> ---<br>
> Karl J. Slifer<br>
> Assistant Professor<br>
> University of New Hampshire<br>
> Telephone : <a href="tel:603-722-0695">603-722-0695</a><br>
<br>
</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
b1_ana mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:b1_ana@jlab.org">b1_ana@jlab.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>