## Review Committee Meeting Monday 15 January 2007 12:00 Pacific / 15:00 Eastern

### Minutes: Monday 15 January 2007 12:00 Pacific / 15:00 Eastern

## Agenda and Contact Info

#### Agenda

- Discussion of the GRB Search Paper
- Jolien's comments [ TXT ]

#### Contact Info

InterCall telecon service: Phone: 1-866-380-5536, participant code: 435 672 9587 # International callers ++1-816-249-4731 with same code International access numbers (~10 cents/min surcharge for LIGO Lab): Paris 017 080 7156 ; Lyon 042 603 0036 ; Germany toll-free 0800 182 1591 ; Berlin 030 726 167 371 ; Rome 00645 217 080 ; UK toll-free 0808 234 7914 ; London 0203 107 0293 Handy participant command: Press *6 ["*M"] to mute, #6 to unmute

## Minutes

- It is a holiday, and most people cannot attend.
- Keith Thorne's comments:
- Equation (21) could have the symbol for flux on the left hand side and then the discussion of how Eq. (21) is flux can be shortened.
- Explain difference between E and E_e.

- Jolien's significant comments:
- Words to accompany "isotropic emission": the relation between flux
and energy (i.e., between E_iso and h_rss) is fine as is, but the source
should not be assumed to be radiating in one polarization only. Jolien
would prefer that the radiation is in equal quantities in two uncorrelated
polarizations + and x. This does not affect the formula describing
the relation between E_iso and h_rss but it is a more intuitive physical
meaning of what people may consider to be isotropic emission, and it
is similar to the white noise burst injections. However, it is not really
what the efficiency curves in the S4 untriggered search refer to.
Need a description of the model source for isotropic emission that can be used consistently in all three papers.

**Peter and Erik will settle on something.** - Factors of sin(i) are wrong in other equations of energy. (That is, the equations are correct if for i=90 degrees.) Joel: why not just have a single equation with an arbitrary factor/function of i that encodes the unknown beaming? Peter: these models are the cases in which the factors are actually correct.
- Discussion of merger scenario. Suggest drop BH-BH discussion and instead have discussion of NS-BH (which is more relevant).
- Error analysis. Need to include errors due to (i) phase uncertainty (which is effectively a frequency-dependent timing error?) and (ii) uncertainty in the fit parameters.

- Words to accompany "isotropic emission": the relation between flux
and energy (i.e., between E_iso and h_rss) is fine as is, but the source
should not be assumed to be radiating in one polarization only. Jolien
would prefer that the radiation is in equal quantities in two uncorrelated
polarizations + and x. This does not affect the formula describing
the relation between E_iso and h_rss but it is a more intuitive physical
meaning of what people may consider to be isotropic emission, and it
is similar to the white noise burst injections. However, it is not really
what the efficiency curves in the S4 untriggered search refer to.
- Next week we will take up GRB paper again.
- Discussion about integrating Virgo participation.

$Id: minutes-2007-01-08.html,v 1.2 2007/01/08 23:14:40 jolien Exp $