[Clas_cascades] Updated Note

[Lewis Graham]

Hi Kijun,

I posted an update version on the wiki.
>
>
> (1) page 19,20: You mentioned the trigger correction factors with 4.5 
> and 5.3 but 6.4. Which one is the last one in our final analysis ?  In 
> the last analysis we use 5.3 and 6.4.  The 5.3 is the one used in our 
> comparison plot and the 6.4 is the one used which puts the untriggered 
> to triggered range in line.
(2) page 25 : last part, 9% level => 15% level.  Done
> (3) Table 2. Untriggered Tagged Region Correction : 6.4 => 4.5/5.3/6.4
> You remarked only 6.4 here, it seems to me our final correction is 6.4 
> .  I've changed it to 5.3/6.4.  Our correction is 5.3 for delta and we 
> believe that with the MM subtraction this will reduce the high energy 
> of the cross section which will preserve the 5. 3.  But as the data 
> stands to correct to the untriggered/triggered region is 6.4.  So I 
> have placed both in the table.
> (4) Table 2. Missing momentum cut for EG3 : MMom < 2GeV => Are you 
> sure ? not 0.2GeV , Yeah it's 0.2 GeV.
> (5) Relatively, text under the Table 2, you're saying that
> "The only difference shown between the aaplications us the G11 trigger 
> efficiency ...." I think there is two more difference in terms of 
> correction between G11 and EG3, which are (a) 2ns tagger cut 
> correction (b) z-vertex cut.   Changed the text to reflect this!
> (6) It just for my understanding....There is no explanation about 
> multiple hit correction between Fig14 and Fig19, which means Fig14 
> (bottom) and Fig19 should be same. But Fig 19 is higher than Fig14 due 
> to multiple hit correction. I think it should be explianed in text 
> somewhere between. Done.
> (7) page 28, 4th row from top; "...fromt he..." => "...from the .."   
> Done.
> (8) page 28, 5th row from top, "t-counter" => "T-counter"  Done.
> (9) page28, Section 5.2; "...were compared to existing CLAS data..." 
> => "...were compared to other CLAS data..." Done.
> (10) page 28, Section 5,2; "In Figure 20, the magenta ....." => "In 
> Figure 20, the magenta closed circles .... blue open circles ...." Done.
> (11) page 28, Section 5,2; "From Figures 22-24 displaying ...." => 
> "From Figure 25 displaying ...." Done.
> (12) page 28, Section 5,2 (very bottom); For better my understaing, 
> how you get 6% in maximum uncertainty ? By subtracting the amplitudes 
> on the avg fit plots at the very end.  Looking at them though, I think 
> I put switched the values around in the table.   I need to look back 
> at the script to confirm this.
> (13) page 30; Table 3 => should be removed... I agree, I guess we can 
> discussed and make the final decission on Thursday.
> (14) Fig 25, in caption ; Saphir( ) => SAPHIR( ), symbol should be 
> corrected with "full square" Done.
> (15) For me, I am not sure whether we have to show Fig 28, 31. Yeah, 
> b/c of the major difference I don't see the need as well.  I think we 
> can get a final decission on this one on Thursday also.
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Kijun

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clas_cascades/attachments/20100526/2a909fde/attachment.html