From: Dick Hahn (email@example.com)
Date: Tue May 31 2005 - 12:05:53 CDT
I just sent you an updated slide of the BNL optical data that you might
want to use.
I have some comments about the version of your talk that you distributed
over the weekend. In general, I think that the newer version is much
1) In slide 2, where you mention "counting and shape measurement", I suggest
that you say "counting and energy shape measurement"
2) I am a bit confused by the plots in slide 3, where the Braidwood narrow
blue band is centered at sin-sq(2theta13) = 0.05. In later slides you say
that we have discovery potential for >0.013, so why are you stressing the
0.05 value? Also, in slide 32, your curves are centered around 0.01, and in
slide 33, around 0.02. I must be missing a crucial point here. I don't
understand why your examples feature so many different values of
3) In slide 12, the expression "near to far event relative event ratio" is
unclear and cumbersome. You should rephrase it.
4) In slide 14, it is not obvious to me why having the detectors co-filled
on the surface reduces the Rn levels. You should explain that statement.
Common filling will certainly ensure uniformity of the Gd-LS between the
different modules, but Rn issues depend on the concentrations of Rn in the
local environment, on having a clean room in which the filling is done, on
preventing leaks of air into the modules, etc.
5) In slide 24, you cite the overburden as 464 mwe. In other slides, you
cite 450. Shouldn't you be consistent in the quoted value?
6) Finally if you have to cut out any slides, I think that you can remove
slide 26 since much of the information it conveys is included on your other
slides. Otherwise I don't see many other slides that you can afford to
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 03:10:14 CDT