Dear Pete,
thank you for your T11e draft. Here are some comments and suggestions.
I disregard most textsetting issues, typos, and (lack of) references for now.
Title/Abstract:
===============
* "vector analyzing power" -- is more conventionally used for the
single-pol case (iT11); suggest sticking to "beam-target vector
asymmetry" that you use in the abstract when referring to T11e
* "symmetric BLAST" -- symmetry is referred to before the geometry
of the detector is known (and later saying "simultaneously measured
in both sectors" does not explain it either)
Intro
=====
* Move the first sentence to the back of the section, after first
mentioning the GC-GM interference.
* I wish the motivation on T11e were extended beyond a simple
statement that a better chi^2 is needed for the form-factors.
I know the literature is scarce, but perhaps you could add
a couple of sentences saying why vector is just as useful
as tensor (different systematics, complementarity of methods, etc).
Regarding physics, try adding a few sentences in the spirit of
Joe Mitchell's Hall C proposal which was (good for us!) dropped.
I attach it for your convenience.
* Incorporate the last sentence of Intro "The sensitivity of T11e..."
into the previous physics introduction.
Experimental apparatus
======================
* "g-2" precession -- electron would precess even if g == 2
* "hPz which was simultaneously obtained..." is misleading:
simultaneously to what? A reader might think that there were
two independent methods to obtain hPz while you are referring
to a concurrent quasi-elastic measurement.
* Would expect more discussion on how hPz was determined.
* "polar angle, as measured ... axis" --> "scattering angles"
* "This relatively large acceptance..." -- too ambitious to my taste
* Fig.1 is borderline quality (at least in BW printout). Try removing
the shading (i.e. the colours) of everything but the coils (or chambers).
Data analysis
=============
* "Various asymmetries can be defined..." -- cut
* I think equations (2) and (3) with the accompanying text up to
"...to obtain the beam-target vector asymmetry A_V^ed" should
appear much earlier, in the Introduction. Figure 2 is of
unacceptable quality. Spell out "OPE".
* The two consecutive paragraphs "The beam helicity..." and
"With the target..." should go to Experimental apparatus.
This is not data analysis apart from the last sentence
where you refer to Aved_perp and Aved_par. You should
say what is their connection to th* and ph*.
Results
=======
* I would replace Figure 3 with numbers within the text to gain
space you might need elsewhere, or try to combine the plots
into one. Maybe this would also be a good spot to mention
NIKHEF (and forthcoming BLAST) Aved quasielastic data,
which should also be done in the introduction to make
a clear contrast to our elastic measurement.
* "averaging th* and ph* over the two bins..." -- one of the crucial
points to my comprehension: wasn't the th*/ph* rotation done
event-wise?
* "These quantities are implicit ... which are explicit ..." --
this is too complicated, and it is not clear to me what you
actually did to extract T10e and T11e. In other words,
I would love to see a nicer flow of explaining how the errors
in the angles propagated into the final error on hPz.
* Figures 4 and 5 are curve jungles. I am sure you will make
a couple of iterations with Arenhovel, Phillips, etc. regarding
which ingredients would be most rewarding. Please let us know what
those people say. If you decide to keep Figure 3, you might drop
Figure 4 altogether, or vice-versa.
That's it for now. Of course I am looking forward to the comments
of people with more insight into the subject than my own. Stay tuned,
Simon
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Peter Karpius wrote:
> Hello all-
>
> I am working on a rough draft of a paper on T11e which is attached.
> Comments and questions regarding this are as follows:
>
> 1) I still need to incorporate the latest recrunch.
>
> 2) A question for the collaboration is, should the extraction of GM
> be included in this PRL or in a later paper? After all, it does
> require the use of Chi's T20 and T21 data and the length of the
> paper is already approaching the PRL limit.
>
> 3) It is hoped that a PRC will follow this.
>
> 4) Need to take a look at radiative corrections again and verify that we
> have done things correctly.
>
>
> Please comment on the attached draft. Thanks-
>
>
> -Pete
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Pete Karpius
> Graduate Research Assistant
> Nuclear Physics Group
> University of New Hampshire
> phone: (603)978-6152
> FAX: (603)862-2998
> email: karpiusp@einstein.unh.edu
> http://pubpages.unh.edu/~pkarpius/homepage.htm
> ----------------------------------------------
-- Simon Sirca Dept of Physics, University of Ljubljana Tel: +386 1 4766-574 Jadranska 19 Fax: +386 1 2517-281 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:32 EST