<div dir="ltr">Hi Oscar,<div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 7:47 PM, O. A. Rondon <<a href="mailto:or@virginia.edu">or@virginia.edu</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
Hi Karl,<br>
<br>
On p. 6, top paragraph,<br>
<br>
"Each cycle is independent and are irrelevant" =><br>
"Each cycle is independent and changes that happen at the end of the<br>
cycle are irrelevant"<br>
<br></blockquote><div>OK</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
P. 8, last parag. of sec. 1.2.6<br>
"...HMS. The affects on the .." =><br>
"...HMS. The effects on the .."<br>
<br></blockquote><div>OK</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
On the write-up about extra asymmetries, it would be good to have in<br>
[14] the estimated values for A_EW = 8E-5*Q^2 [E155x], and some number<br>
for A_V^d, which I estimated as A_V^d(Q^2=0.8, x=0.56) ~ 7E-4,<br>
unmitigated. It can be made negligible by combining +Pz with -Pz data,<br>
or with Pz ~ 0.<br>
<br>
If we are not very confident about A_V^d at the moment, I would agree<br>
with Dustin to just mention the beam-helicity A_PV being A_EW(Q^2< 5) <<br>
~ 4e-4 \cite[P. Anthony et al., E155x, Phys.Lett.B553:18,2003], and what<br>
Wally said about a target-only A_PV.<br>
<br>
In the mean time, Ellie could try getting a better estimate for A_V^d<br>
using the formula and figures on F_{LT}^{1-1} from Arenhoevel. But we<br>
need to be aware that A_V^d (Pz-only electromagnetic asymmetry, may<br>
contribute at high x).<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div> I'll update the paragraph in the response with this information, and remove the citation to the PV technote. If we get further questions on PV, we'll have to update.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>-Karl </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Oscar<br>
<div class="im HOEnZb"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Oscar<br>
<br>
Karl Slifer wrote:<br>
</div><div class="im HOEnZb">> Hi All,<br>
><br>
> Attached please find a revision of Dustin's note. Mostly I've just<br>
> front-loaded the document with what I think is the most important<br>
> information. So if possible, atleast take a look at the abstract and first<br>
> page. The rest of the changes are pretty minor typo errors and slight<br>
> trimming of redundant discussions. One concrete change is that I inflated<br>
> the estimate of relative uncertainty on Pzz with hole burning in the text<br>
> from 10% to 12% to better reflect what is shown in Fig. 1, and I simply<br>
> labeled the two projection plots as Pzz=20% and Pzz=30%, instead of<br>
> with/without hole burning.<br>
><br>
> Note: we are still missing the "killer plot" from g2p or other low current<br>
> experiment to back up the pion yield plot from Transversity, but it looks<br>
> like that will take some time to obtain.<br>
><br>
> I'm aiming to send the PAC reader response tonight, so please do try to<br>
> take a look beforehand, or let me know if you want more time.<br>
><br>
> thanks much,<br>
><br>
> -Karl<br>
><br>
> ---<br>
> Karl J. Slifer<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</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></div>