Gerry, the Executive Summary says explicitly that the plan goes to 2012. Should I make projections through 2013 as suggested? Wolfram Gerry Bunce wrote: > 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 -- Wolfram Fischer Brookhaven National Laboratory Bldg. 911B, Upton, NY 11973, USA Tel. +1-631-344-5452