From: Bolton, Tim (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jun 30 2005 - 10:13:49 CDT
The responses range from very good to acceptable for this committee, in my opinion; but it would be nice if responses to #1 and #4 were clearer and more to the point.
I still find the introduction of the idea of a "7% dead-time" in the response to #1 somewhat troubling. It's not an unrecoverable dead time; it is an offline detection efficiency. The first sentence of the second paragraph could be dropped.
Likewise, in the response to #4, it is paragraph 2 that is the most important. Paragraph 1 and Table I actually add little, especially the discussion of hemispherical overburdens. The salient point in Table I is just that the backgrounds only go down by about a factor of 2.
High Energy Physics Group
Kansas State University
From: Mike Shaevitz [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wed 6/29/2005 8:15 PM
To: Braidwood Collaboration
Subject: Final Draft for Review
The final draft of our response to the NuSAG questions is given in the
After some thoughts and discussion, it was decided that having an
introductory paragraph that talked about the further studies needed
for progress on some of the questions would only detract from our
answers. It was also felt that making a plea for funding in this
document was not appropriate.
Please let me know tomorrow morning if you have any further comments.
I plan to submit the document to NuSAG tomorrow afternoon.
Thanks to everyone for all of your work and help,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 03:10:18 CDT