From: Jim Pilcher (j-pilcher@uchicago.edu)
Date: Fri Jun 03 2005 - 00:15:19 CDT
Dear Mike,
There is a lot of good information in your plots
but perhaps even too much. I wonder if a more
direct statement wouldn't be a plot of
sensitivity vs distance for the nominal dm2
together with a band corresponding to +/- 1 sigma
in dm2. I'd just stick to the combined
sensitivity from the two methods. I think the
committee wants to capture a simple number to
characterize the dependence on distance.
You might consider such a plot together with the
more detailed information of these plots you have
already prepared.
Regards,
Jim
At 1:34 PM -0400 6/2/05, Mike Shaevitz wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>Attachment converted: PB G4 1.5
>HD:Far_Distance_Study 1.pdf (PDF /«IC»)
>(002F5628)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Jun 04 2005 - 03:10:15 CDT