TODO LIST 000523

THE FOLLOWING HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN V5:

  - finish the H section 3.4.2

  - recheck Q1 and R1 rates:  is there a wq cut 
    there or not? 

  - are we still going ahead with the proposed 
    kinematics.  Are the runtimes in the current 
    version of the proposal OK?
    (I heard nothing about this so I guess 8 hours per 
    kinematics is what we are going with)

  - incorporate Weinstein comments from 5/09, 5/15
    incorporate any other comments I receive
    (received no other comments other than those on todo list below)

    Weinstein comments 5/09:

    1) 'valence' is the correct spelling.  
    2) p2 par3, sentence 2: 'Experimentally however, it has not been as
    convenient a target as ... reactions.  Fortunately, the Hall A  waterfall
    target is a convenient (and self-normalizing) oxygen target.
    3a) p3 par 1: 'longitudinal' is misspelled
    5) p3 par2 sen2: 'This was the first part of CEBAF experiment 89-003
    (89-003a) [20] which was the first experiment performed in Hall A.  All
    ... quasielastic kinematics.  Cross sections and response functions were
    measured as a function of missing energy at several missing momenta up to
    $p_{miss} = 340$ MeV/c.'
    6) p4 par2 (and other places): one dash '-' is not the same a minus sign
    '$-$'.  You can get a similar symbol by using two dashes '--' in tex.
    7) p5, bottom: 'asymmetry' is misspelled
    8) p7 fig4 caption: 'as' instead of 'is' in line 5
    9) p7 par 1: 'striking' is misspelled
    pmiss = 50 MeV/c?
    11) p10 par1: 'Exchange' is misspelled
    12) p10, par 1 line 5: 'also' is redundant
    14) fig 7: mention the pp and pn calculations in the caption
    15) p15 par2 line 1: replace 'strength' with 'cross section'
    16) p15 par 2, end: add: 'See figure 7.'
    17) p16: what is 'RF'?  You need to have $p_{miss}^2/2m_p$ in the
    formula, not just $p_{miss}/2m_p$.  This is also on p20, par 2.
    18) p18, par1: add: '2.1.1 Theoretical underpinnings'
    19) p18, par 1, sen3: 'Although the bswf used are very good, this
    experiment will further constrain them.'
    20) sen 5: 'Note that to constrain the bswf, many data points at low p_m
    are needed.'
    20) p18 par 1,line 16: 'it should be tested.'
    21) p19 par1: '... cc2 over cc1, this should be tested over a larger
    range of p_miss.'
    22) p19, last par: insert subsection '2.1.2 the proposed measurements'
    Replace the '-515' with $-515$ to get the correct typesetting
    23) p20 par 2, line 7: '... and the $A_{lt}$ asymmetry as a function of
    missing energy for several missing momenta ...'

    - reorder the references so that they come as they
      should in the text

    - incorporate the newest and best figures from Udias
 
    - Weinstein comments 5/17

THE FOLLOWING REMAIN TO BE ADDRESSED:
TODO - WHAT DO PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY?  FURTHER INPUT?

    comments from Weinstein:

    1) I think we should include Ryckebusch's p-shell calculation on our
    p-shell plot so the reviewers can see that we do not expect his s-shell
    calculation to work at large pmiss.  Pictures have MUCH more impact than
    words so it is not enough to just mention in the text that the calculation
    is too large.  (This is the same argument I have with NL's paper: we need
    to either show explicitly the weaknesses of the calculation or leave it
    out.  Here we have enough room to show it.)

    3) p3 par1: cite Lanen in addition to Steenhovem, Ulmer and Dutta
    4) p3 par2: make a new subsection starting here
    10) p7 par1: do we want to mention the p3/2 data-theory disagreement at
    13) p10 par 3: start a new subsection before this paragraph

    o need to be more clear on the theory status. I think
      we need to say very clearly that
      a) we have a one-parameter theory which describes
         the data incredibly well using the optimal bswf,
         optical potential, current operator, etc [where
         optimal is determined from other experiments], and
      b) we have thoroughly studied the dependence of the
         theory on these elements so that when the data are
         no longer described by the theory, we will know
         where the theory needs to be improved.

    o have to be clearer about the overlap between relativity
      in the wave function [spinor distortion] and relativity
      in the current operator.  Since neither is an observable
      by itself (we only measure expectation values), the
      proper treatment of relatvity comes from a combination
      of current operator AND wavefunction.

    comments from Gilad:

    The main comment that was made is that we need to make clear
    that although there are many effects that can affect the
    physics (gauges, current operators, bswf, MEC etc.), we
    study all of them (Jim is still working on the channel
    coupling) and we understand that some of them are not going
    to be relevant, and that we have PREDICTIONS for others.
    These effects play differently for different p_miss and
    observables, so we should be able to have an handle on
    them.  I think that the appendix should help to make this
    point clear, but we should also emphasize it more in the
    body of the proposal.  More than that, the sf extracted 
    (the one parameter) is consistent with the ones extracted 
    for the low Q^2 data.  Udias' latest paper and his appendix 
    have very good descriptions of these relationships.  We may 
    want to put some of them into the body of the proposal.

    - write an abstract and flesh out the summary

    - get a new copy of the continuum draft from Nilanga
      for inclusion, if that is still the plan

    - get a new copy of Udias' suite for inclusion, if 
      that is still the plan

    - a complete and thorough proofread

    - fill out all the JLab paperwork associated with 
      submitting the proposal