[E02013] GEn prl

[Seamus Riordan]

Hi Pete,

Thanks for the thoughtful attention to our results and paper.

We have made some progress on the lowest Q2 point analysis, but due to 
manpower considerations, as our graduate student is leaving for a few 
months, there will not be any serious work on it again until February 
(barring any problems with visas, etc.).  It is our hope to have 
something for the June Hall A collaboration meeting.  As you can 
imagine, we're very interested in completing and sharing it.

Regarding any further changes, we don't anticipate anything 
significant.  Issues that will be pursued for the long paper include 
further refinements to the Monte Carlo we use for the inelastic analysis 
as well as addition work Gordon is doing to improve the target 
polarimetry uncertainty.  It's my hope that this paper will also induce 
more enthusiasm in the theory community to think about (and calculate) 
3He FSI relevant to spin-dependent measurements.  All of these aspects 
have appropriate systematic errors on them right now and we expect any 
further work to simply reduce them.

The F2d/F2u figure was removed solely to reduce space, which was 
suggested by one of the reviewers.  This along with several parts of the 
text, were removed only after considerable deliberation, as we felt all 
aspects of the paper were worthwhile to the presentation of our 
results.  Additionally, we feel adding in our fits to the paper enhances 
the discussion of the differences.

Thanks again for your comments and questions,
Bogdan, Gordan, Nilanga, and Seamus


Pete E.C. Markowitz wrote:
> Hi Bogdan, Gordan, Nilanga, and Seamus,
>
> Congratulations!  The reviewers obviously agreed that the results
> are important and that the collaboration did a good experiment.  I think 
> you also were able
> to answer their comments.
>
> As a collaborator, I do have a couple of questions but I doubt
> that you need to change your draft to answer them.
>
> One of the reviewers asked about overlapping data with other experiments,
> and you mentioned the low Q2 point under analysis (but it not in the paper).
> Could you tell us what the status of that point is?  When might the analysis
> be completed on that point, and is there a preliminary number which
> you can share with us now?
>
> You are all doing an commendable job of pursuing the systematic 
> uncertainties, and
> I applaud you for implementing the change between the May 2010 results 
> and the
> present October 2010 results. The change is modest (and basically brings 
> us back to
> December 2009).  But having 3 sets of numbers in 10 months might suggest 
> that the
> numbers are possibly not quite final?  Are there any issues you know of 
> which could again change the
> results?
>
> One intriguing comment was regarding the Plaster results.  The disagreement
> is slightly less with the (new) October 2010 results, but the point that 
> the results may not
> be compatible escaped me until the reviewer pointed it out.  Plaster was 
> deuterium,
> and this 3He result has different systematics but the GEn values are 
> still more than 1 sigma
> away from each other.  [Your new fit sort of splits the difference, and 
> your statement that
> it is about the same fit even without the new data suggests that the 
> final point from Plaster
> may be inconsistent with the other previous data.]  However, any 
> discrepancy is de-emphasized
> in your current paper, especially by removing the lower panel in Fig. 
> 2.  Although the results in
> the upper panel might be consistent, the results from the May 2010 lower 
> panel of Figure 2
> look like they could not be consistent.  Was that why it was removed?  
> It obviously does
> not save any real space, since you blew up the top panel.
>
>      -pete
>
> On 10/23/10 4:10 PM, Bogdan Wojtsekhowski wrote:
>   
>> Dear Collaborators,
>>
>> We have received a response from PRL which was quite positive.  Two of
>> the referees made some constructive suggestions for changes, and we
>> have modified the manuscript accordingly.  Attached to this email,
>> please find three documents.  One, labeled GEn_update.pdf, is the
>> updated manuscript, with all sentences in the text that have been
>> changed highlighted in blue.  The second, Response_to_ed.txt,  is,
>> as the name suggests, the text we have prepared to send back in an
>> email to the editors.  Finally, we also include a document containing
>> the response from prl (From_editor.txt).
>>
>> We note that since the time we submitted our paper to prl and the
>> arXiv, we discovered a 3% (relative) error in our target polarimetry.
>> Half of this was a bug in a target-polarimetry code, and the other
>> half was due to a systematic that, in previous He-3 experiments, was
>> negligible, but because of the high performance of the GEN target,
>> became large enough (~1.5%) to worry about.  We have made the
>> appropriate adjustments to the results that appear in the abstract and
>> the tables, and have also noted this in the attached response to the
>> editors.  We also needed to increase the target polarimetry error from
>> 4% to 4.7%, which has very little effect on our overall error.
>>
>> Please send any comments over the next week.  We would like to
>> resubmit on Friday, October 29th.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Bogdan, Gordon, Nilanga and Seamus
>>     
>
>   


-- 
Dr. Seamus P. Riordan			riordan at jlab.org
University of Massachusetts, Amherst    Office: (757) 269-5289
Post-doctoral Research Associate	Pager:  (757) 584-0051

CEBAF Center A103, Jefferson Laboratory
12000 Jefferson Ave.
Newport News, VA 23606