Elong-13-09-24

Comparing dAzz between x<0.75 and x>0.75

Looking at the newest Azz rates plot, that we can get those statistics from a week-long measurement almost seems too good to be true. As a check, I've compared it a bit more closely to what we did for the b1 proposal.

<math>A_{zz}</math>				<math>b_1</math>
<math><x></math>	<math>dA_{zz}^{stat} (\times 10^{-3})</math>	<math>dA_{zz}^{sys} (\times 10^{-3})</math>		<math><x></math>	<math>dA_{zz}^{stat} (\times 10^{-3})</math>	<math>dA_{zz}^{sys} (\times 10^{-3})</math>
0.8	4.85	5.26		0.16	1.42	1.90
0.9	3.56	12.0		0.28	2.07	1.98
1.0	3.28	0.249		0.36	2.28	1.95
1.1	3.55	30.7		0.49	2.14	1.96
1.2	5.15	66.7
1.3	6.29	92.4
1.4	9.15	99.8
1.5	11.7	100.
1.6	9.26	100.
1.7	7.98	100.
1.8	9.79	100.

It's easiest to compare it to the lowest x point for b1, since that's where the rates are the closest. The b1 measurement has twice the x range, and also about half of the statistics, so I think that the uncertainties for Azz make sense.

--E. Long 21:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)