Re: High-Z correction document now truly ready

[Peter Kammel <kammel@zero.npl.uiuc.edu>]

Dear Tom,

Thanks for your carefully work on this tricky business. Still I believe 
there are some corrections.

i) Table 1 caption: I think the remark "the original table
contained several errors" is overstated. I had an incorrect value for
the C transfer rate, which was already corrected in 2004 (see ref [4]).
Nothing changed since ref [4].

ii)4.1. If you put in hydrogen capture rates in the differential
    equations, it needs to be done consistently for all states
    (atomic and molecular). Otherwise it is no improvement, rather
    a confusion.

iii) 5.1 I find that the inclusion of the ppm formation rate
   only has a small effect, like 2.5%, between my original
   estimate and your extended kinetics for the production
   data. I rather think the main effect is the inconsistent
   use of y in my original table.

iv) All the above is more of academic interest. The most relevant
   part for our error is the estimate of the deuterium modified
   del_lambda/Y correction in the CalibNat data. Let us talk about
   that:

   Perhaps you want to correct according to comment ii), but I don't think
   that is too important.
   The sensitivity to deuterium depends critically on the ratio of
   mp->mZ versus md->mZ transfer rates, which happen to be similar
   for oxygen. But as we have serious discrepancies in the consistency
   of transfer measurements, we should assign a larger error to
   the deuterium effect, perhaps 3 Hz.
   More serious is the uncertainty whether N2 was (mostly) responsible
   for the impurity yield in NatH2. Then the deuterium effect is
   expected to be larger and has opposite sign. I get
                  del_lambda/Y (s-1/ppm)
          revision 1      revision 2
   O       0.80           0.82
   Tom     0.80           0.813
   N       0.825          0.98

   so a nearly 20% effect for N2. In additon the eff(N)/eff(O) comes into
   play.
   So probably, we have to take a correction using 0.9+-0.12. As Steve
   quotes an error of 35 s-1 on this data point, this uncertainty should
   still be ok.

   Let's talk tomorrow.

   Peter





On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Tom Banks wrote:

>
> Dear all,
>
> after today's teleconference, I fixed the remaining errors I knew to
> exist in my document on revisions to the high-Z correction numbers for
> (deltaR/Y).  Please find the latest version of the document at:
>
>  http://weak0.physics.berkeley.edu/weakint/research/muons/private/tbanks_dir/Documents/high-Z-table-revised.pdf
>
> (The latest version has the date 11/21/06 on the title page.)  This should
> complete my work on the subject, and I would like to formally submit the
> memo for approval as an official "MuCap Note."
>
> Regards,
> Tom
>
>