<div dir="ltr">Dear Viktor,<div><br></div><div>I am talking about our piN PWA results and misinterpretation which Volker and primary authors made in this draft.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers, Igor </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>-----</div><div>Igor Strakovsky, SAID INS The George Washington University</div><div>Tel: 571-553-8344,Skype: igors1945_2, Fax: 202-994-3001</div><div>Cell: 703-728-5627, Emails: <a href="mailto:igor@gwu.edu" target="_blank">igor@gwu.edu</a>, <a href="mailto:igor@jlab.org" target="_blank">igor@jlab.org</a></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Viktor Mokeev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mokeev@jlab.org" target="_blank">mokeev@jlab.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Hi Igor',<br>
<br>
I want to pay your attention to the CLAS paper on exclusive pi^+n elerctroproduction (attached):<br>
<br>
Measurements of ep→e′π+n<br>
at W = 1.6 - 2.0 GeV and extraction of nucleon resonance electrocouplings at CLAS<br>
CLAS Collaboration (K. Park (Jefferson Lab & Old Dominion U.) et al.). Nov 30, 2014. 21 pp.<br>
Published in Phys.Rev. C91 (2015) 045203<br>
JLAB-PHY-15-4<br>
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.045203<br>
e-Print: arXiv:1412.0274 [nucl-ex] |<br>
<br>
In the published in this paper analysis of pi^+n electroproduction CLAS data, the N(1710)1/2+ resonance was seen in at least in 4 of 5 bins of Q^2. Its electrocouplings were extracted successfully and they are different from zero at least in 4 Q^2 bins.<br>
<br>
Successfull description of the CLAS pi^+n data in four bins of Q^2 with the same Q^2-independent hadronic parameters of N(1710)1/2+ is the strong and almost model independent evidence for this state existence.<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
Victor<br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
From: "Igor Strakovsky" <<a href="mailto:igor@gwu.edu">igor@gwu.edu</a>><br>
To: "clasmbr" <<a href="mailto:clasmbr@jlab.org">clasmbr@jlab.org</a>>, "clascomment" <<a href="mailto:clascomment@jlab.org">clascomment@jlab.org</a>>, "Kenneth Hicks" <<a href="mailto:hicks@ohio.edu">hicks@ohio.edu</a>>, "Viktor Mokeev" <<a href="mailto:mokeev@jlab.org">mokeev@jlab.org</a>>, <a href="mailto:jprice@csudh.edu">jprice@csudh.edu</a>, <a href="mailto:tangwei@jlab.org">tangwei@jlab.org</a><br>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 6:02:18 PM<br>
Subject: OPT-IN: Differential cross sections and polarization observables from the CLAS Kâ photoproduction and search for new Nâ states<br>
<br>
Dear Ken, Alexey, Eberhard, Viktor, and Andrey,<br>
<br>
Thank you very much for a good piece of physics. It is difficult to write comments after Dan Carman.<br>
<br>
My main concern is not about physics. I do not think that Alexey can be the first author of the CLAS experimental paper. He did nothing for analysis, did not take shifts and so<br>
on. Sorry, Alexey, nothing personal. My suggestion is that Ken (corresponding author)<br>
or his student must be the first.<br>
<br>
Then back to physics...<br>
<br>
1) pg 1, left, 1st phrase: "The threshold...": I do not think that this phrase does make any sense - please rephrase it<br>
<br>
2) pg 1, left 3rd phrase: This statement is wrong. Then I disagreed with the Volker's position which is a misinterpretation of our GW SAID results (latest PWA of piN elastic scattering data). Our position is solid - there is no evidence to support P11(1710).<br>
You have to rephrase or skip it.<br>
<br>
That is all by now,<br>
Igor</blockquote></div><br></div>