<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>A_{EW} is the parity violating asymmetry, which comes into play with polarized beam. It's ~4E-4 like Oscar mentioned, and further reduced by integrating both beam states. With unpolarized beam, we need to be careful about A_V^d. I'm working on trying to get out some numbers, but am not entirely familiar with Arenhovel's formalism and so it'll take some time to get an estimate I'm confident with. </div><div><br></div><div>What level can we cancel out Pz to (can we do this with hole-burning?)? If we can integrate over Pz states to the 10^-few level, that could scale A_V^d down to the point where it's entirely negligible. </div><div><br></div><div>Take care,</div><div>Ellie<br><br><span style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">------------------------------------------</span><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">Elena Long</div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">Ph.D. Candidate</div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">Kent State University</div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "><a href="mailto:ellie@jlab.org">ellie@jlab.org</a></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "><a href="mailto:elong5@kent.edu">elong5@kent.edu</a></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">(757) 354-4278</div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "><a href="http://www.personal.kent.edu/~elong5">http://www.personal.kent.edu/~elong5</a></div></div><div><br>On Jun 13, 2013, at 10:59 PM, Karl Slifer <<a href="mailto:karl.slifer@unh.edu">karl.slifer@unh.edu</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Karl Slifer</b> <<a href="mailto:karl.slifer@unh.edu">karl.slifer@unh.edu</a>><br>
Date: Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:58 PM<br>Subject: Re: [b1_ana] TAC/iTAC resp.<br>To: Dustin Keller <<a href="mailto:dustin@jlab.org">dustin@jlab.org</a>><br><br><br><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div>Hi Dustin,<br><div class="gmail_extra">
<br clear="all"><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Dustin Keller <<a href="mailto:dustin@jlab.org">dustin@jlab.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">The 12% is for the total error with 10% from the target (hole burning).<br>
The 10% was already on the high end and combined with the other systematics<br>
it became 12%. This difference is not really that important to me if you<br>
like 12% better.<br>
<br>
I think figure 2 a) is a bit detrimental. This shows the combination<br>
of contributions but is really to big for what we want. Why put<br>
it in? 2 b) is good.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>JP suggested this, and we discussed at the last meeting: </div><div><br></div><div>0.355%/15 days/2 cycles per day = 1.2*10^{-4} over a single 12 hour cycle.</div>
<div><br></div><div>It seems very convincing to me.</div><div class="im"><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<br>
As I mentioned in the e-mail the 0.1 mm holes in the cups design was<br>
just an order of magnitude. After checking today its actually 0.35 mm,<br>
I would like to change the number there.<br>
<br></blockquote></div><div>OK</div><div class="im"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<br>
Unless I'm looking at the wrong version the note in Ref. 14 does not<br>
address the parity violating asymmetries they were asking about.<br>
However when I looked into this I did see that they were very much<br>
negligible but only in regard to the paper they mentioned. In addition<br>
the Ref. 14 points out issues around additional components to the asymmetry<br>
that may bring up more questions than answers. (ie the final expression<br>
in Eq. 9. of Ref. 14).<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>OK</div><div><br></div><div>thanks,</div><div><br></div><div> Karl </div><div><div class="h5"><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<font color="#888888"><br>
dustin<br>
</font><div><div><br>
<br>
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Karl Slifer wrote:<br>
<br>
> 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>
> Assistant Professor<br>
> University of New Hampshire<br>
> Telephone : <a href="tel:603-722-0695">603-722-0695</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Dustin Keller <<a href="mailto:dustin@jlab.org">dustin@jlab.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> see below,<br>
>><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>
>>> technote<<br>
>> <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>
>>><br>
>>><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%<br>
>> total<br>
>>> relative uncertainty combined with the drift errors in table 1 of the<br>
>>> technote.<br>
>> 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>
>><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>
>> For no hole-burning that is ture.<br>
>><br>
>>><br>
>>> 3) The reduction comes from cutting the polarimetry relative uncertainty<br>
>>> from 8% to 4%.<br>
>> This reduction is for no hole burning but increases a bit with<br>
>> hole-burning when using 10% relative insead of 4%.<br>
>><br>
>>><br>
>>> 4) This is justified by using the expected uncertainty from line shape<br>
>>> fitting instead of TE.<br>
>> Yes as stated in the note from line shape fitting combined with cold NMR.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> And if this is all correct, I have a question: is claiming reduction of<br>
>> 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>
>> 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>
>> dustin<br>
>><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<br>
>> 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>
>><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></div></div><br></div></div>
</div><br></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>b1_ana mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:b1_ana@jlab.org">b1_ana@jlab.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>