From: stefanski@fnal.gov
Date: Thu Jun 02 2005 - 21:48:38 CDT
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 : Fri Jun 03 2005 - 03:10:14 CDT