<html>
<head>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Hi Kijun,<br>
<br>
I posted an update version on the wiki.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:4BF9D6EE.6090808@jlab.org"><br>
<br>
(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. <font color="#ff0000"> 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.</font></blockquote>
(2) page 25 : last part, 9% level => 15% level.
<font color="#ff0000">Done</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:4BF9D6EE.6090808@jlab.org">(3) Table
2. Untriggered Tagged Region Correction : 6.4 => 4.5/5.3/6.4
<br>
You remarked only 6.4 here, it seems to me our final correction is 6.4
. <font color="#ff0000">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.</font><br>
(4) Table 2. Missing momentum cut for EG3 : MMom < 2GeV => Are
you sure ? not 0.2GeV
, <font color="#ff0000">Yeah it's 0.2 GeV.</font><br>
(5) Relatively, text under the Table 2, you're saying that
<br>
"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. <font color="#ff0000">Changed the text to reflect
this!</font><br>
(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.
<font color="#ff0000">Done.</font><br>
(7) page 28, 4th row from top; "...fromt he..." => "...from the
.." <font color="#ff0000">Done.
</font><br>
(8) page 28, 5th row from top, "t-counter" => "T-counter"
<font color="#ff0000">Done.</font><br>
(9) page28, Section 5.2; "...were compared to existing CLAS data..."
=> "...were compared to other CLAS data..."
<font color="#ff0000">Done.</font><br>
(10) page 28, Section 5,2; "In Figure 20, the magenta ....." => "In
Figure 20, the magenta closed circles .... blue open circles ...."
<font color="#ff0000">Done.</font><br>
(11) page 28, Section 5,2; "From Figures 22-24 displaying ...." =>
"From Figure 25 displaying ...."
<font color="#ff0000">Done.</font><br>
(12) page 28, Section 5,2 (very bottom); For better my understaing, how
you get 6% in maximum uncertainty ?
<font color="#ff0000">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.</font><br>
(13) page 30; Table 3 => should be removed...
<font color="#ff0000">I agree, I guess we can discussed and make the
final decission on Thursday.</font><br>
(14) Fig 25, in caption ; Saphir( ) => SAPHIR( ), symbol should be
corrected with "full square"
<font color="#ff0000">Done.</font><br>
(15) For me, I am not sure whether we have to show Fig 28, 31.
<font color="#ff0000">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.</font><br>
<br>
Sincerely yours,
<br>
Kijun
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>