<div dir="ltr"><br><div>Hi Simonetta,</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks, I'll add this to the motivation. If you send a longer version I'll also update.</div><div><br></div>
<div> </div><div>-Karl</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Simonetta Liuti <<a href="mailto:sl4y@cms.mail.virginia.edu">sl4y@cms.mail.virginia.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">Hi All,<br>
please find attached my short description. Please let me know if you would need a longer version<br>
Simonetta<br>
<div><div><br>
On Sun, 5 May 2013 16:56:09 -0400<br>
Karl Slifer <<a href="mailto:karl.slifer@unh.edu">karl.slifer@unh.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
>Hi,<br>
><br>
><br>
>On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Elena Long <<a href="mailto:ellie@jlab.org">ellie@jlab.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Good afternoon,<br>
>><br>
>> I had a number of mostly minor comments on the proposal, which I've<br>
>> included below. Along with them comes a few questions:<br>
>> In 2 The Proposed Experiment (page 19), first paragraph, do we want the x<br>
>> range to be the central values we're measuring or also include the x range<br>
>> we're average over? If the former, then it should be 0.16 < x < 0.49. If<br>
>> the latter, then it should be 0.09 < x < 0.58.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>ok, I've updated to the former.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> Figure 7: I don't have the colors or legend of the different models -- is<br>
>> this something you'd like back in? I think the coloring I would argue<br>
>> against, since what we want to emphasize "pops" more without it. However, I<br>
>> leave this to the collaboration. Relatedly, I'm currently plotting b1 vs x.<br>
>> As Patricia noted, our error bars (as well as HERMES) would look<br>
>> drastically smaller if we plotted x*b1 vs x. Which method is preferred?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>It's fine without color, but let me know which curve is which and I'll add<br>
>it to the caption. (However, the 2 curves for Azz have same style.)<br>
><br>
>Table 4 (page 24) -- Does this need to be updated since we're looking at 30<br>
>> days instead of 28?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
> The diff between 28 and 30 on the overhead is small.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> Take care,<br>
>> Ellie<br>
>><br>
>> And now, my comments.<br>
>> ---------------------------------------------------<br>
>><br>
>> Forward, second paragraph (page 4): "…sensitivity of the integrated counts<br>
>> in each states…" to "…sensitivity of the integrated counts in each state…"<br>
>><br>
>> ok<br>
><br>
>> Figure 4 (page 14), the left plot looks extremely light when viewed on the<br>
>> iPad, but looks fine on my Mac. My guess is it's fine, but I don't have my<br>
>> printed copy available and just wanted to double-check that it will look<br>
>> fine printed. If not, I can darken the lines a bit. Figure 6 (both plots)<br>
>> do the same thing.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>yes, these plots are stolen from some old publications. Please do whatever<br>
>you can to improve.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> Table 2 (page 19) maybe should be re-captioned to read "Expected<br>
>> uncertainties in Azz and b1."<br>
>><br>
>> ok<br>
><br>
><br>
>> In 2 The Proposed Experiment (page 19), first paragraph, do we want the x<br>
>> range to be the central values we're measuring or also include the x range<br>
>> we're average over? If the former, then it should be 0.16 < x < 0.49. If<br>
>> the latter, then it should be 0.09 < x < 0.58.<br>
>><br>
>> In 2 The Proposed Experiment (page 19), second paragraph, the dilution<br>
>> factor being used is 0.95*f_ideal = 0.285. Also our luminosity comes out to<br>
>> 1.57x10^35/cm^2*s -- Using 2 is probably fine, I don't know how many digits<br>
>> we want in it. Also the HMS omega acceptance we've been using is 5.6 msr,<br>
>> not 6.5. In the last sentence, the projected uncertainties are shown in<br>
>> Table 2, the kinematics of the spectrometers in Table 1.<br>
>><br>
>> ok, fixed<br>
><br>
><br>
>> Figure 7: I don't have the colors or legend of the different models -- is<br>
>> this something you'd like back in? I think the coloring I would argue<br>
>> against, since what we want to emphasize "pops" more without it. However, I<br>
>> leave this to the collaboration. Relatedly, I'm currently plotting b1 vs x.<br>
>> As Patricia noted, our error bars (as well as HERMES) would look<br>
>> drastically smaller if we plotted x*b1 vs x. Which method is preferred?<br>
>><br>
>> Figure 7 (again): We don't have a black band representing systematic<br>
>> uncertainty, the plots I made only show statistical.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>ok, I removed the text. We'll need a plot with syst on eventually.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> In 2.1 Experimental Method (page 22), paragraph 5 (top line of page 22),<br>
>> there is an extra "and" in "…number of deuterium nuclei in the target and<br>
>> and…" In the same paragraph, a super minor question is whether ND3 and LHe<br>
>> should be italicized or not. In the following paragraph, just after<br>
>> Equation 22, we should say R_T is the total rate since we're no longer<br>
>> using R_D in Equation 22.<br>
>><br>
><br>
>ok, fixed<br>
><br>
><br>
>><br>
>> In Time dependent factors (page 23), paragraph 4, it reads "The signal<br>
>> with noise ratio suppression…" when it should read "The signal to noise<br>
>> ratio suppression…"<br>
>><br>
><br>
>ok, fixed<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> Table 4 (page 24) -- Does this need to be updated since we're looking at<br>
>> 30 days instead of 28?<br>
>><br>
>> nope, unless someone has updated estimates<br>
><br>
>> In 2.2 Polarized Target (page 24), first paragraph, do we want to mention<br>
>> that it's an ND3 target?<br>
>><br>
>> ok<br>
><br>
><br>
>> Figures 10 (page 25) and 11 (page 26) -- Is the GeN mentioned the neutron<br>
>> electric form factor? If so, it's normally written G_E^n. If it's not, I<br>
>> apologize for pointing it out.<br>
>><br>
>> yes. but we usually call E08-027 "g2p" for example<br>
><br>
><br>
>> In 2.2.1 Polarization Analysis (page 27), paragraph 5 (first full<br>
>> paragraph on page 27), if LHe and ND3 on page 22 are italicized than ND3<br>
>> and LiD here should be as well. It also has GeN, similar to Figures 10 and<br>
>> 11. Another super-minor point, in the last paragraph in the section (page<br>
>> 27, second full paragraph) 'hole-burning'. should be written as<br>
>> "hole-burning." (according to my husband who majored in English)<br>
>><br>
>> ok<br>
><br>
>> In 2.2.2 Depolarizing the Target, first paragraph (page 27), a comma<br>
>> should be inserted after "To move from polarized to unpolarized<br>
>> measurements" and another one should be added in the second paragraph after<br>
>> "To minimize [a] systematic effect over time"<br>
>><br>
>> ok<br>
><br>
><br>
>> In 2.2.3 Rendering Dilution Factor, first paragraph (page 27), a comma<br>
>> should be inserted after "To derive the dilution factor" In the line<br>
>> following it, the and should be removed from "…measured, and neglecting the<br>
>> small contribution…"<br>
>><br>
>> ok<br>
><br>
><br>
>> In Equation 33, the second line has "…3sigma(1+2AzzPzz/2))pf + …" --<br>
>> should that 2 before Azz be there? I think it's an extra factor that<br>
>> doesn't continue with the rest of the derivation.<br>
>><br>
>> I'm not sure.<br>
><br>
>> In 3 Summary, first paragraph (page 28), "We request 28 days of<br>
>> procution…" should be changed to "We request 30 days of production…" The<br>
>> comma in "…using a longitudinally polarized deuteron target, together<br>
>> with…" should be removed. In the second paragraph, the comma in "…to the<br>
>> tensor quark polarization, and allow a test of…" should be removed.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>ok<br>
><br>
><br>
>thanks for the careful read,<br>
><br>
>-Karl<br>
><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On May 4, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Karl Slifer <<a href="mailto:karl.slifer@unh.edu">karl.slifer@unh.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><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<br>
>> plan 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<br>
>> find some consensus on this. Am I the only one still nerding it up in<br>
>> front of 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>
>> 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>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --------------------------------------------<br>
>> Elena Long, Ph.D.<br>
>> Post Doctoral Research Associate<br>
>> University of New Hampshire<br>
>> <a href="mailto:elena.long@unh.edu">elena.long@unh.edu</a><br>
>> <a href="mailto:ellie@jlab.org">ellie@jlab.org</a><br>
>> <a href="tel:%28603%29%20862-1962">(603) 862-1962</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<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>
>><br>
>><br>
<br>
</div></div>**************************************************************<br>
**************************************************************<br>
Prof. Simonetta Liuti telephone <a href="tel:%28434%29%20982-2087">(434) 982-2087</a><br>
Department of Physics FAX <a href="tel:%28434%29%20924-4576">(434) 924-4576</a><br>
University of Virginia home <a href="tel:%28434%29%20973%209593">(434) 973 9593</a><br>
382 McCormick Rd.<br>
PO Box 400714<br>
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4714<br>
<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<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>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>