[ee] TCS proposal ready for collaboration review

[Pawel Nadel-Turonski]

Dear Igor and Mher,

Thank you very much for your second round of comments. We have now 
implemented them in the latest version.
The references are currently being updated. The reason we did not 
specify the electron beam polarization was to ensure compatibility with 
the already approved proposals, but we will try to add a number that 
would remain compatible with the already approved beam time. The only 
point which would be very difficult to implement is the issue of R and 
R'. Due to the different integration ranges, these are somewhat 
different observables, and while we tried to explain the differences in 
some detail in Section 4 (Projected Results), we cannot simply replace 
one with the other. It would indeed have been less confusing if there 
was only one observable, though!

Again, thank you very much!

Best Regards,

     Pawel

On 5/2/2012 10:41 AM, Igor Strakovsky wrote:
> Dear Pawel and TCSers,
>
> Dear Ken,
>
> We have to notice a great improvement since our first reading but it does
> require more effort.
>
> There are several technical issues - you have to improve Figs 10 and 11 -
> labels are unreadable.  Fig 25 will be better if you will add theoretical
> predictions.  Several Refs are missing, in particular [58,64,66,68-70].
> To prevent reader confusing, you have to use R or R', not both.
> Please do not forget to use a spellchecker before your submission.
>
> Then...
>
> 1) page 3, 2nd paragraph "applications of GPDs" sounds odd to me the 
> world
> application in that content.
>
> 2) page 4, 2nd paragraph "which can be extracted in a 
> model-independent from
> ... ."  guess should be: "which can be extracted in a 
> model-independent WAY
> from ... ."
>
> 3) page 14 after equation 14-in "panel of Fig. 9. As in Fig. 7, ..." 
> guess one
> could improve citing of Fig. 7, it is mentioned also after, easiest 
> way to
> simplify is just remove the part "As in Fig. 7"
>
> 4) page 18 above section "F" "60% and 20% error, respectively ..."
> guess, authors can and should stress out the importance of proposal 
> also as
> a benchmark for future proposals/experiments with polarized targets.
>
> 5) page 32 section B. projected results: 2nd paragraph: "The cross 
> section
> measurement will constrain global fits ..." till "shown in section 2E"
> Guess this part is well demonstrated in page 18 and also was discussed in
> introduction and so on... Probably it is better to make it short and 
> simple.
>
> 6) page 42: section A. Data with reversed torus field:
> 1st sentence "identification and will" should be "identification will"
> 2nd paragraph "of the torus files" should be "of the torus fields"
> last paragraph: "for pinning down the details the detector" should be
> "for pinning down the details OF the detector"
>
> 7) page 43 Beam time request:
> request on "longitudinally polarized 11 GeV beam" I guess authors 
> better add
> request on polarization also (minimum value of the polarization at 
> least, see
> equation 12 of proposal). Do not think adding 80% polarization as a 
> minimum
> or so will require additional work to prove necessity of the 
> requirement. And
> even if it will require some more work, guess we should have such a
> requirement.
>
> Igor
> Mher
>
>
> On Tue, 01 May 2012 00:33:10 -0400, Pawel Nadel-Turonski 
> <turonski at jlab.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear Igor and Mher,
>>
>> Thank you again for your very helpful comments. We have tried to 
>> revise the proposal draft accordingly. Please find a new version at:
>> https://userweb.jlab.org/~turonski/tcs/proposal/tcs_clas12-proposal.pdf
>>
>> In particular, we have made a clearer statement about the J/Psi 
>> measurement and mentioned the role of the forward tagger in a future 
>> proposal on J/Psi electroproduction. We have also tried make the 
>> explanation of the relation between R and R' more clear, and we 
>> provide all the projections. Please note that the latter are in the 
>> Projected results section.
>>
>> Most of the other questions have been addressed, directly or 
>> indirectly, through a rewrite of the relevant parts of several 
>> section, and we feel that this would be a good time to provide you 
>> with the new version in view of the relatively short time that remains.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>>     Pawel