Fw: Response to RBUP Proposals by PAC/TK

From: Flemming Videbaek (videbaek@sgs1.hirg.bnl.goV)
Date: Wed Dec 06 2000 - 20:57:37 EST

  • Next message: Jens Jorgen Gaardhoje: "Analysis summary from NBI" 

    I will like to share with you the memo written by Tom Kirk followoing the
PAc meeting.
It should be noted that I do not believe that I nor W.Busza, or John Harris
indicated any preference to plan B as implied by TK's note- it is not that
it matter, but worth noting for historical reference. I strongly belive our
physics output would be larger with breaks between runs, but do see that the
plan A 14 week running was not ideal either.

With this in hand the 2001 run should atrt physics some time mid to late
May.

regards
    Flemming


----- Original Message -----
From: "tom kirk" <tkirk@bnl.gov>
To: "Busza, Wit" <busza@mit.edu>; "Harris, John" <John.Harris@yale.edu>;
"Videbaek, Flemming" <videbaek@bnl.gov>; "Zajc, Bill" <zajc@columbia.edu>
Cc: "Kirk, Tom" <tkirk@bnl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 4:41 PM
Subject: Response to RBUP Proposals by PAC/TK


> . December 5, 2000
>
> Dear Wit, John, Flemming and Bill:
>
> Attached, please find an electronic copy of the
> BNL response to the RHIC Beam Use Proposals for
> FY 2001, with the PAC Statement on the RBUPs
> attached.  This will make it easier to re-distribute
> among your collaborators as you desire.  The
> paper version was mailed today.
>
> Best wishes for a very good next run!
>
> Sincerely, Tom
>
> Attachment

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 06 2000 - 20:53:57 EST