From: finley@fnal.gov
Date: Fri Jun 03 2005 - 09:20:12 CDT
Hi, Ray: OK ... sorry about using a word with specific meaning to the cogoscenti ... but indicating someting special on the 1500 meters would help NuSAG ... Cheers. Dave.
----- Original Message -----
From: stefanski@fnal.gov
Date: Thursday, June 2, 2005 9:48 pm
Subject: Re: Corrected: Sensitivity vs Far Detector Systematics
> It's our reference design, not "baseline!"
>
> Ray Stefanski
> Fermilab, MS122
> P.O. Box 500
> Batavia, Il 60510
> Phone: 630.8403872
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: finley@fnal.gov
> Date: Thursday, June 2, 2005 8:01 pm
> Subject: Re: Corrected: Sensitivity vs Far Detector Systematics
>
> > Hi, Mike: I think it would be good to indicate that the 1500 m
> > plot is our "baseline". Cheers. Dave.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Mike Shaevitz <shaevitz@nevis.columbia.edu>
> > Date: Thursday, June 2, 2005 12:34 pm
> > Subject: Corrected: Sensitivity vs Far Detector Systematics
> >
> > > Prompted by a question at NuSAG from Natalie Roe, I have
> > > looked at our sensitivity vs. far detector location (See
> > > attached plot - red line is at 0.005). To me, it looks like
> > > for any dm2 value between 0.0013 and 0.0030 eV^2, our 1500 m
> > > is a good choice. If dm2 is shown to be greater than
> > > 0.0022, one might want to go closer to get a better shape
> > > measurement. It is fairly obvious that going to larger
> > > distances has no advantage.
> > >
> > > I was thinking of sending these plots to Natalie (and Peter
> > > Meyers), so let me know if you have comments.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Jun 04 2005 - 03:10:15 CDT