<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Buddhini Waidyawansa</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:buddhini@jlab.org">buddhini@jlab.org</a>></span><br>Date: Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 4:09 PM<br>Subject: Re: [Q-weak] First draft of the Qweak elastic transverse asymmetry paper<br>To: Dave Mack <<a href="mailto:mack@jlab.org">mack@jlab.org</a>><br><br><br><p dir="ltr">Hi Dave<br>
Table 1 doesn't have polarization correction. There I just wanted to show what I get from the 3 fits. I guess I can divide by P since I am using the average polarization. But then when I talk about the average of the three asymmetries later and divide that by P, I wonder if it would confuse the reader's.<br>
Dave G and i did check the effect on the final result when we divide the measured asymmetry by p before averaging and after averaging. The change in the central value was less than a percent. Its in my technote.<br>
One thing you may not find in my data release talk and tech note is the beamline background correction analysis. You can find that technote in doc db. When I did my data release talk I did not include the beamline background or the soft neutral background dilutions.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Thanks for checking my analysis and numbers. I know Paul is too busy to check it. Even though I am confident in what I did, having another set of eyes on the analysis always helps!</p><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div>
</div></div></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font face="georgia, serif">-------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Buddhini Waidyawansa<br></font>Postdoctoral Fellow<br>
C122,<br><div><font face="georgia, serif">12000 Jefferson Ave,</font></div><div><font face="georgia, serif">Newport News, VA 23602.</font></div><div><font face="georgia, serif">TP 757-912-0410</font></div></div></div>
</div>