From: Bolton, Tim (bolton@phys.ksu.edu)
Date: Thu Jun 30 2005 - 13:27:58 CDT
I did read the table wrong; I was confused by the large number of rows :-)
Tim Bolton
Professor
High Energy Physics Group
Kansas State University
tbolton@ksu.edu
785-532-1664
________________________________
From: Jonathan Link [mailto:link@fnal.gov]
Sent: Thu 6/30/2005 1:20 PM
To: Bolton, Tim; braidwood@hep.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Final Draft for Review
Hi Tim,
I think that you are reading the table wrong. The neutron and Li9
backgrounds go down by a factor of 5 when one goes from 450 mwe to 900.
Also, the analysis used in the answer to question 1 is meant to be a
simple analysis, not our actual or proposed analysis. In my original
text, I made it clear that this was something that we likely could not
do worse than (I also said it a bit more elegantly there).
-Jon
Bolton, Tim wrote:
>Mike,
>
>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.
>Tim Bolton
>Professor
>High Energy Physics Group
>Kansas State University
>tbolton@ksu.edu
>785-532-1664
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Mike Shaevitz [mailto:shaevitz@nevis.columbia.edu]
>Sent: Wed 6/29/2005 8:15 PM
>To: Braidwood Collaboration
>Subject: Final Draft for Review
>
>
>
>Dear Braidwooders,
>
>The final draft of our response to the NuSAG questions is given in the
>links below.
>
>http://braidwood.uchicago.edu/private/text/BWanswersV2.ps
>http://braidwood.uchicago.edu/private/text/BWanswersV2.pdf
>http://braidwood.uchicago.edu/private/text/BWanswersV2.tex
>
>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,
>Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 03:10:18 CDT