Hi Matthias, Ok, thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to make sure there was a good reason for that number. 25% is OK by me. -Cheers,A ---------X---------X---------X---------X---------X---------X---------X---- On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Matthias Grosse Perdekamp wrote: > Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:15:49 -0500 (EST) > From: Matthias Grosse Perdekamp > To: Abhay L Deshpande > Cc: Gerry Bunce , hms , > 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 , Wlodek Guryn , > Fleming Videbaek , Larry Trueman > Subject: RE: RHIC spin plan telephone meeting notes > > > > Hi Abhay, > > the 25% is what is needed to make reasonable A_N > measurements in the next two years and A_T in > the two subsequent years. I believe I brought > this up during Dave's talk when the 1/8 was > presented and we had agreed that 1/8 was not > the final number... > > Best Regards, > Matthias > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Abhay L Deshpande wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > >