[Rgc_analysis] Trains

[silvia at jlab.org]

Hi Sebastian,
no a-priori objection from me, aside that we will have to have it approved
by Nathan. If anyone can please test the file size with/without that cut
it would be great.
We can use the dsts to make that estimate, we have them for the runs we
have cooked for the review. Which, incidentally, I think went fine -
thanks to all for your precious help!!!
Silvia


> Dear all,
>
> I am still unhappy that our “SIDISDVCS” train has a cut W > 1.95 in
> it. This cut prevent us from studying ANY part of the resonance region (1
> < W < 2) which, I am very sure, doesn’t contribute a lot of extra file
> size but is crucial if we want to study a wide variety of issues,
> including duality (exactly where do we have to cut at high x?), radiative
> corrections, and higher twist. We have a lot of papers on the various sum
> rules for different Q2, and RG-C can contribute significantly to the world
> data body on this; however, any such sum rules require to integrate over
> the entire region x < 1 including the resonance region.
>
> So, unless I am missing something and the fully inclusive (e’ only) data
> for W < 2 are contained in some other train, I feel we are throwing away a
> wealth of additional information for what I expect to be a very modest
> reduction in file size. Hence, I urge us to drop the W < 1.95 cut.
>
> Thanks - Sebastian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rgc_analysis mailing list
> Rgc_analysis at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/rgc_analysis
>