Re: 12 degrees is GOOD, was: RE: run plans and rates...

From: Ramiro Debbe (debbe@sgs1.hirg.bnl.goV)
Date: Tue Nov 13 2001 - 07:48:42 EST

  • Next message: Dana Beavis: "Re: run plans and rates..."

    I want to add my vote to the choice of forward angles. If Ian's optimism
    is accepted, why not go even further and think about 3 or 4 degrees, after
    all the community is expecting BRAHMS to study the highest rapidities as
    possible and that doesn't require high Pt.
    
    Ramiro
    
    On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Ian Bearden wrote:
    
    > Hi All,
    > I would like to add a strong second to Flemming suggestion to run at 12
    > degrees for as long as possible.
    > I think, though, that we should not be so pessimistic as to say that the BFS
    > has only T4 and 2 of 3 T5 modules.
    > We can certainly use T2 tracks as a 'seed' to find tracks in T3, rather than
    > relying on T3 alone (that is, one uses T3 to validate and extend T2 tracks)
    > and this will increase the T3 efficiency by a large factor that I don't know
    > yet (but which Pawel and Radek are working on).  We can play the same game
    > using T4 and T5, with the small added complication that we have to rely on
    > the momentum from D2 and D3 and lose the third momentum determination.
    > In fact, even without T5 at all we could do this by matching tracks from
    > FFS+T3+T4 to hits on H2 and rings in the
    > (extremely beautiful!) RICH.   Since this is only necessary at high p where
    > there are few tracks per event on average, there should not be large losses
    > due to double hits on H2.   Again, we lose a little momentum resolution, but
    > probably not enough that we should lose a lot of sleep over it.
    > 
    > Summary: 12 degree high field is GOOD.
    > 
    > Ian
    >   -----Original Message-----
    >   From: owner-brahms-l@bnl.gov [mailto:owner-brahms-l@bnl.gov]On Behalf Of
    > Flemming Videbaek
    >   Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 2:47 AM
    >   To: brahms-l@bnl.gov
    >   Subject: run plans and rates...
    > 
    > 
    >   Dear Collaborator,
    > 
    >   I think the question on settings to measdure in the last (1.5 week- taken
    > into account the STAR problems) of the run comes to a choice, not so much
    > related to rates for higher pt values but as a matter of detector
    > performance vs. physics goals.
    > 
    >   Ian has mentioned rates vs pt /triggers in a couple of e-mails. My own
    > evaluation are very close to his. It should be noted that for the same pt-
    > range and dy bin the rates per trigger 6 are not so different.
    >   - the covered dy range gets wider at more forward angles.
    >   - the effective p range covered at any angle setting is ~ Pref 60%-200%
    > with Pref= 23 GeV* Field fraction.
    >   Some typical values are
    >   20 deg ~ 12 per 75 MeV/c pt bin at 2 GeV/ce
    >   30 deg  ~6  per 100 MeV/c pt bin at 2 GeV/c (outside Pref range)
    >   12 deg ~14 per 100 MeV/c pt bin at 2GeV/c
    >   all for 70K triggers 6.
    > 
    >   So the choice of angles is much more governed by other factor as PID than
    > rate
    > 
    >   30 deg K/p  (H1)   6 GeV --> 3.0 GeV/c
    >              K/pi  (C1)  9        -->  4.5 GeV/c
    > 
    >   20 deg                             1.5
    >                                           3.0
    > 
    >   12-15 deg   (p*.2-.25)            K/p   H1 1.5
    >                                   k/pi  C1  2.0
    >                    H2,RiCH  K/P         5.0
    >                     H2/rich    pi/K      3.5-4.
    > 
    >   At theta < 12 the pt range just get less.
    >   Thus to get to the highest pt for identified particles with FS there are
    > two choices
    >   a) 30 deg  with well working C1, H1 -> 4.0 GeV/c
    >   b) 12-15 deg using the full spectrometer -> 4 GeV/c too.
    >   The rates in the BFS are ~ 1`/3 just for solid angle/accpt , with the
    > added problem that
    >   we have only T4 + 2/3T5 working at present.
    > 
    >   The physics issue is briefly that 30 deg is approximately like 90 (i.e. on
    > the plateau) while the
    >   12-15 deg is actually on the edge/turn over , and might show real
    > diference. Have we enought time the choice is clearly to do both settings,
    > but with an expected 40h*60k*1.6== 6M events this is not expected to be
    > enough for both settings, including others that will have to be redone .
    > 
    >   I will point out that my personal physics preference is to do the 12 deg,
    > as I have advocated for several years), but is concerned that the lack of
    > tracking in FFS (T5 problems, no T3 and less than 100% eff) will make it a
    > not guarenteed measurement and thus carries a risk of not getting a result.
    > 
    >   I will finally point out that the present 30 deg 2*300k trigger 6 are for
    > valuable cross chekcs with the MRS  data.
    > 
    >   My suggestion will be in the near term to complete the 30 deg
    > measurements, move to 12 deg, take  data at the 1/2 field setting ~500k
    > trigger and get at the same time documented feedback in terms of actuall
    > tracks reconstructed in full FFS (for 12 deg) with PID , as well as for the
    > 30 deg data so we can judge rates etc for the last week or so
    > 
    >   best regards
    >       Flemming
    > 
    >   ------------------------------------------------------
    >   Flemming Videbaek
    >   Physics Department
    >   Brookhaven National Laboratory
    > 
    >   tlf: 631-344-4106
    >   fax 631-344-1334
    >   e-mail: videbaek@bnl.gov
    > 
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Nov 13 2001 - 07:48:56 EST