<div dir="ltr">Hi All,<div><br></div><div>Attached please find a revision of Dustin's note. Mostly I've just front-loaded the document with what I think is the most important information. So if possible, atleast take a look at the abstract and first page. The rest of the changes are pretty minor typo errors and slight trimming of redundant discussions. One concrete change is that I inflated the estimate of relative uncertainty on Pzz with hole burning in the text from 10% to 12% to better reflect what is shown in Fig. 1, and I simply labeled the two projection plots as Pzz=20% and Pzz=30%, instead of with/without hole burning.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Note: we are still missing the "killer plot" from g2p or other low current experiment to back up the pion yield plot from Transversity, but it looks like that will take some time to obtain.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I'm aiming to send the PAC reader response tonight, so please do try to take a look beforehand, or let me know if you want more time.</div><div><br></div><div>thanks much,</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Karl</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 Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Dustin Keller <<a href="mailto:dustin@jlab.org">dustin@jlab.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
see below,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Karl Slifer wrote:<br>
<br>
> Hi Ellie, Dustin<br>
><br>
> Sorry this question is a bit late, but I would appreciate some<br>
> clarification on the plots in the most recent<br>
</div>> technote<<a href="https://userweb.jlab.org/~dustin/work/b1_dir/Azz_response/Azz_response.pdf">https://userweb.jlab.org/~dustin/work/b1_dir/Azz_response/Azz_response.pdf</a>><br>
<div class="im">><br>
><br>
> Please let me know if I have the following correct:<br>
><br>
> 1) The plots in the technote show a systematic error that combines 6% total<br>
> relative uncertainty combined with the drift errors in table 1 of the<br>
> technote.<br>
</div>There are two plots. One, without hole-burning should show a 6% relative<br>
with drift in table 1. The one with hole-burning should show a 12%<br>
relative with 2/3 of the drift listed in table 1.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> 2) The 6% relative systematic has been reduced from the 9.2% relative<br>
> error listed in table 3 of the submitted proposal.<br>
</div>For no hole-burning that is ture.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
><br>
> 3) The reduction comes from cutting the polarimetry relative uncertainty<br>
> from 8% to 4%.<br>
</div>This reduction is for no hole burning but increases a bit with<br>
hole-burning when using 10% relative insead of 4%.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
><br>
> 4) This is justified by using the expected uncertainty from line shape<br>
> fitting instead of TE.<br>
</div>Yes as stated in the note from line shape fitting combined with cold NMR.<br>
<div class="im">><br>
><br>
> And if this is all correct, I have a question: is claiming reduction of the<br>
> relative (non-drift) uncertainty from 9% to 6% (visually) worth it, since<br>
> it complicates the discussion, and I was under the impression that the<br>
> drift uncertainties dominated.<br>
<br>
</div>Drift is reduced as well for the hole-burning cases. Drift is dominate<br>
close to the zero axis but for some of our point in higher x if we assume<br>
kumano like parameterization the relative can become more dominate. The<br>
point of the two plots is to show that with hole burning there is a<br>
reduction of drift but that the increase from the relative uncertainty<br>
still is not disadvantageous.<br>
<br>
give me a call for more detail<br>
<a href="tel:434-924-6799">434-924-6799</a><br>
thanks<br>
<font color="#888888">dustin<br>
</font><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
><br>
> -Karl<br>
><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>
><br>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Long, Elena <<a href="mailto:Elena.Long@unh.edu">Elena.Long@unh.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> My apologizes, the Pzz_40_* files have Rel. Sys=6%.<br>
>><br>
>> Take care,<br>
>> Ellie<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>
>> <a href="http://nuclear.unh.edu/~elong">http://nuclear.unh.edu/~elong</a><br>
>><br>
>> On Wed 05 Jun 2013 04:11:34 PM EDT, Elena Long wrote:<br>
>>> Good afternoon,<br>
>>><br>
>>> I've attached *.eps plots using the drift uncertainties listed in<br>
>>> Table 1 of the ITAC response. They are included as a weighted average<br>
>>> to each x bin, where the bins have been collected across multiple<br>
>>> spectrometer settings. Pzz_20_* files are with Pzz=0.2 and Rel.<br>
>>> Sys=12%, Pzz_40_* files are with Pzz=0.4 and Rel. Sys=9%. *_bars_*<br>
>>> show the uncertainties on the points and *_bands_* splits the<br>
>>> systematics into a band underneath the estimates.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Take care,<br>
>>> Ellie<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Wed 05 Jun 2013 02:31:44 PM EDT, Dustin Keller wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Yes I'm ok with using as much or as little as we all decide<br>
>>>> I guess we can determine what to keep next meeting.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> dustin<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, O. A. Rondon wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Hi Dustin,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Minor comment: collaboration spelling.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> One comment Don made is that a 7-8 pages response to a two pages report<br>
>>>>> seems a bit too long. I tend to agree that we should do some<br>
>>>>> condensing.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Also I think the bulk of section 3 would be better separated as an<br>
>>>>> addendum. I think at the response level we should concentrate on<br>
>>>>> justifying 20% Pzz. I believe Karl said that Chris was comfortable<br>
>>>>> with it.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> One way to attain the desired level would be to use a 6.5 T coil<br>
>>>>> (simple<br>
>>>>> solenoid is cheapest, and it would work fine with longitudinal<br>
>>>>> field). I<br>
>>>>> do think we should mention that a new target should be seriously<br>
>>>>> considered, since the CLAS coils were just a stopgap solution for an<br>
>>>>> experiment that needed both para and perp field.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Cheers,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Oscar<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Dustin Keller wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Edits have been made to the TAC/iTAC resp. with the<br>
>>>>>> updated version at<br>
>>>>>> <a href="https://userweb.jlab.org/~dustin/work/b1_dir/Azz_response/">https://userweb.jlab.org/~dustin/work/b1_dir/Azz_response/</a><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> additional edits and suggestions are welcome.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> dustin<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Dustin Keller wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> The working rough draft of the TAC/iTAC response is at<br>
>>>>>>> <a href="https://userweb.jlab.org/~dustin/work/b1_dir/Azz_response/">https://userweb.jlab.org/~dustin/work/b1_dir/Azz_response/</a><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> we may need considerable altering, editing, and condensing<br>
>>>>>>> but all the information is there.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> dustin<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>
>>>>>> 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>
>>>>><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>
>>>> 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>
>>>> 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>
>>>> <a href="http://nuclear.unh.edu/~elong">http://nuclear.unh.edu/~elong</a><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>
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>