1. E. Beise, U Maryland Revisit the EDM sensitivity E. Beise, U Maryland Oct 2007 collaboration meeting Boston, MA starting points: Golub & Lamoureaux, Phys. Rep. 237 (1994) 1 Section V.H of 2002 pre-proposal Internal report LAUR 02-5924, Van Cleve & Cooper Chibane, etal, Meas. Sci. Tech. 6 (1995) 1671 Work by V. Ciancolo, Feb 2006 Collab. mtg (Caltech)

2. E. Beise, U Maryland What have I actually done so far? read a bunch…. talked to people….

3. E. Beise, U Maryland Basic considerations Precession frequency shift w/ reversal of electric field:  Statistical uncertainty (no background & uncertainty principle limit): Basic driving equation is:

4. E. Beise, U Maryland Starting from work of V. Ciancolo “event” (measurement cycle) generator w/ nominal input parameters analyzer uses Poisson-distributed data, max log- likelihood 2-step process: –first determine (smooth) background –2-parameter fit (  f edm,  ) (only background is from n lifetime in cell, R  = 2)

5. E. Beise, U Maryland Vince’s results Frequency shift is masked by hiding sign of E Distribution consistent w/ expected uncertainty with good  2 Input d n reproduced

6. E. Beise, U Maryland What to do next Revisit all input parameters study (spatial and/or temporal) variations in B and E (notes from Vince) * Additional background scenarios: Contributions from neutron activation (these are very small in the UCN lifetime experiment)? notes from Tito (estimated from UCN lifetime) input neutron distribution from UKy simulations, simulate where the neutrons and  ’s go inside vessel need more information about materials 3 He depolarization, “spin dynamics”? all suggestions/guidance welcome at present