From: stefanski@fnal.gov
Date: Sun Jul 03 2005 - 17:01:54 CDT
Ok, thanks Josh.
Ray Stefanski
Fermilab, MS122
P.O. Box 500
Batavia, Il 60510
Phone: 630.8403872
----- Original Message -----
From: Josh R Klein <jrk@mail.hep.utexas.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 2, 2005 11:26 am
Subject: Re: Final Draft for Review
> Ray et al,
> Sorry---I was out of touch for the past few days and so missed this
> discussion. The barn door may have closed, but I thought it would
> be worth
> commenting in any case on some of your questions.
> >
> > The opening sentence: "Cross-calibration is intended to be a
> bottom line test ....." isn't the goal that some of us imagined. I
> thought we were "cross-calibrating" to establish the relative
> target size (number of target nuclei) in each detector compared to
> one standard detector that remains at the near location for the
> entire run. Most calibration issues mentioned in the answer to Q9
> do not affect this relative measure of target size. You may wish
> to consider replacing the first paragraph with a few sentences
> that express this goal. I seem to remember that Jon Link did a MC
> calculation that provided considerable proof that these
> calibration issues don't affect the relative target size
> measurement. This could be added to the document. The remaining
> discussion of calibration issues might be given in light of the
> lack of sensitivity in the relative target size measurement. This
> approach is more definite and clear. It gives the reviewers a
> solid concept to take back to DOE and P
> > 5.
>
> The cross-calibration at the near site may be the best way for us to
> determine the relative number of target nuclei, though that
> depends a little
> bit on how much you are willing to believe the chemical
> measurements and the
> flow measurements during filling. To make this measurement we do
> need to
> eliminate all sources of difference that are not the number of
> target nuclei
> but which can affect the measurement. Changes in energy scale, for
> example,will lead to a difference in the number of accepted events
> (as in the plot
> Mike showed in his initial NuSAG talk), which will look like a
> difference in
> the number of target nuclei unless we have a good measurement of
> the energy
> scale shift independent of the relative rate of antineutrino
> events. You
> mention that Jon did a study of how these calibrations would
> affect the target
> nuclei measurement---I guess I have not seen this study, but would
> love to get
> the details. I'm not sure I'd believe any such study in great
> detail unless it
> included a reasonably full model of the detector optics and
> scintillatorresponse, something we have yet to put together.
>
> Nevertheless, what the question asked was what needed to remain
> constant during
> the move. The answer given is that we don't need things to remain
> very constant
> because we will calibrate everything again. This goes for the volume
> measurement as well---although we cannot re-do the absolute
> measure of the
> volume at the near site, all we need to know is the differences
> between near
> and far, and this we should be able to do using a measurement of the
> temperature and the height of the material in the neck of the
> vessel.
>
> I actually think that the program outlined (at least the one
> before we cut the
> step-by-step section) is about as clear a statement as we could
> have. The
> cross calibration verifies our entire procedure for determining
> our relative
> efficiencies. There is no other way that such a complete
> verification can be
> done. I agree that in doing this we also measure the relative
> numbers of
> targets---it is one of the many parameters we need to measure, and
> the near
> deployment may give it to us best. But I think saying that is all
> we will get
> out of the near deployment seems to me to be asking for NuSAG or
> our other
> reviewers to ask, "Why can't you just weigh it and save a lot of
> money and
> time?"
>
> Thanks,
> Josh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Well as I say, it?s ok as is. This suggestion is just a thought
> that might make the job easier for the reviewers. Thanks for
> listening,>
> > Ray Stefanski
> > Fermilab, MS122
> > P.O. Box 500
> > Batavia, Il 60510
> > Phone: 630.8403872
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Mike Shaevitz <shaevitz@nevis.columbia.edu>
> > Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 8:15 pm
> > 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 : Thu Jul 14 2005 - 03:10:17 CDT