Hi Gerry, In the PHENIX estimates which we did a few weeks ago, we had assumed 1/8th luminosity with transverse physics which was motivated by the A_TT contamination in to the A_LL measurement. Where do you get the 25% transverse luminosity in this email? Clearly I am missing something. -Cheers, A -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abhay Deshpande WebPage:http://www.phenix.bnl.gov/~abhay | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Asst. Professor of Physics | RIKEN-BNL Fellow | Department of Physics & Astronomy | RIKEN-BNL Research center | SUNY-Stony Brook | Brookhaven National Laboratory| Email: abhay.deshpande@stonybrook.edu | Email: abhay@bnl.gov | Tel: 631-632-8109 | Tel: 631-344-8783 | ---------X---------X---------X---------X---------X---------X---------X---- On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Gerry Bunce wrote: > Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:34:13 -0500 > From: Gerry Bunce > To: hms > Cc: Gerry Bunce , Yuji Goto , > Wolfram Fischer , > Werner Vogelsang , > Vladimir Rykov , > Steve Vigdor , > Stefan Kretzer , > Naohito Saito , Mei Bai , > Matthias Perdekamp , > Marco Stratmann , > Les Bland , Jian-wei Qiu , > Ernst Sichtermann , Dave Kawall , > Bernd Surrow , Abhay Deshpande , > Wlodek Guryn , Fleming Videbaek , > Larry Trueman > Subject: RE: RHIC spin plan telephone meeting notes > > Hello Hal--In the discussion for transverse, we used 20-30% L of > longitudinal. > Therefore, we need to show enough delivered luminosity to reach say .75 x L. > With the new plot from Wolfram (on web) we can see a maximum L for > 200 GeV at the end of 2008 of 300 pb^-1 delivered. We will use some > fraction > of that for "realism" as we discussed (I suggested 70%). You point out > that we should then use 75% of the realistic L for longitudinal. I also > notice that Wolfram has started the 500 GeV luminosity in 2009 (vs. an > engineering year) and reaches a max. of 1500 pb^-1 at the end of 2012. > > I suggest that we show 2009 as 200 GeV running also, which will then > give 265 pb^-1 (Wolfram needs to check this) for realistic > delivered longitudinal luminosity (.7 x .75 x 500, based on previous > Fig. 21 in 1st draft). > > We would then dispense with the engineering run for 500 GeV. We can > either plan only longitudinal running for 500 GeV, and end in 2012 > with 1150 pb^1 max (.7 x 1150 = 800 pb^-1 realistic delivered), or > go thru 2013, with again 25% transverse. > > My vote is to go thru 2013. Anybody disagree or have other suggestions? > (I will check with RIKEN on whether showing the plan this way is a > concern.) > > Gerry > > This is just a plan, of course. One point is that at 500 GeV we collect > data in the range of the 200 GeV running (for x, not Q^2), > as well as lower x. > > -----Original Message----- > From: hms [mailto:hms@hep.anl.gov] > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 11:34 AM > To: Gerry Bunce > Cc: Hal Spinka > Subject: Re: RHIC spin plan telephone meeting notes > > > Hi Gerry, > > This was a nice summary of yesterday's meeting. I > wanted to point out an obvious issue for the schedule that > does not seem to have been covered in any of the discussions > so far, but did come up within STAR. The schedule/runplan > will need to take into account running for both longitudinal > and transverse beams. Your 100 pb^-1 etc. below would > presumably be for just A_LL, or is this combined? > > Best regards, > > Hal > > Gerry Bunce wrote: > > > > Notes on telephone meeting, Jan. 18 2005 > > > > There is a new version of the draft on the web. > > (Main changes in section 2) > > > > Section 2. discussed science section of plan > > --new x vs. p_T plot > > --consider x vs. Q^2 plot with Q^2=p_T^2 for photon, pi > > and Q^2=m^2 for heavy quark, W > > > > --which global fit to use? AAC shows both positive and negative > > Delta G, so it is easier to use to compare sensitivities; show > > differences in pdfs for different global fits in a figure; briefly > > describe the differences > > > > --For sensitivities, use 100 pb^-1 recorded, P=0.7 for 200 GeV and > > 300 pb^-1 for 500 GeV for now, for Phenix. > > For Star use this for jets and such (TPC), and 190 pb^-1 at 200 GeV > > and 500 pb^-1 for 500 GeV for fast detectors only > > (see introduction of section 5). > > > > --we also need to make a table that includes other factors, for > each > > probe that we show. Factors need to include p_T range and > selection > > efficiency, so that the experiment takes data at the claimed live > > time. This table will be included in section 5. (I will prepare > > this, and then each expt. needs to fill it in.) > > > > --we plan to use 70% of maximum luminosity for the sensitivities > > and we will adjust the years spent at 200 and 500 to get this. I > am > > sure we will revisit this later. > > > > --suggested that we show some intermediate sensitivities as program > > progresses. > > > > --some discussion on W--outline. Will have this draft for our meeting > next > > week. > > > > --New introduction for transverse spin. Akio, Les, Matthias, Jianwei to > > work on draft for this section. > > > > 2.7 section (what else is going on)--We thought that we can use this > section > > to describe the experiments and briefly discuss their contributions and > > limitations, with no figures--we would point to the sensitivities on the > > various figures presented earlier (Delta G, Delta qbar, transverse spin). > > Ernst may have more or other suggestions. > > > > 2.8 Elastics--Needs pizzaz. Include carbon, proton plots and hadronic > spin > > flip question. > > > > 2.9 Future ideas section. Mike's and Vladimir/Sudoh's need to be folded > > together. Mike's table 2 should drop 650 GeV, and 100 fb^-1. Claims need > > to be checked. > > > > 3. Accelerator section--In good shape. There will be a new fig. 21, and > it > > will include a minimum at 1/3 max. Polarimetry will probably add the idea > > presented by Anatoli Zelinski Friday (and advocated by Sandro Bravar) > > --a new polarimeter for each RHIC beam based on a thick unpolarized > > hydrogen jet. This is an attractive way to deal with the problem of > > radiation damage for the present carbon polarimeter detectors and > > uncertainty in the carbon energy loss in these detectors. > > > > --Hal pointed out (Friday) that we need words that state that the > > polarimeters will work at 250 GeV too. > > > > 4. Experiments section. We expect a Phenix draft/outline by next week, > but > > complete sections only by the week after (Jan. 31). > > > > Our schedule: > > > > Jan. 25, 1700 EDT--telephone meeting to discuss mostly section 2 (expect > > progress). Also Phenix part of section 4. > > > > Jan. 31, 1700 EDT--request that complete sections be sent to Yuji to put > > on web--this should result in a complete 1st draft. > > > > Feb. 1, 1700 EDT--Discuss 1st draft. Possibly soon after send to expts. > for > > their input. > > > > Feb. 3--likely date for RHIC spin collab. meeting and discussion of plan > > (several people cannot make Feb. 4) > > > > It was a very good meeting. > > > > Gerry >