One last question

[Tom Banks <tbanks@socrates.berkeley.edu>]

Just to clear up a final lingering question I had...

>From your note yesterday:

>    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

What do you mean when you say that, if N2 was the dominant high-Z impurity
in CalibNat, the dueterium effect "has opposite sign"?  I think that the
first part of the sentence, "the deuterium effect is expected to be
larger," just refers to the fact that the dl/Y ratio is much larger for N
than O, so the high-Z correction will be larger in magnitude if we assume
it's all nitrogen, instead of all oxygen.  But I don't understand the
"opposite sign" bit.

Tom