Dear Jens Jorgen (and collaboration)
I must admit that I do not think that pp should be the second priority. To me the choice was between dA and si-si since
afterall the HI program is where the focus of the Brahms baseline program is.
- It has been well documented that at AGS, SPS one sees a smooth development from pp (or pBe) over pAu to heavy AA
and using pp as reference does not give so much information for the AA since does it address what the effect of 'cold' nuclear matter is on higher pt spectra. which the dA would do . You could even argue that 'low-multiplicity dA is equivalent
and could be measured, but clearly not very not as clean as pp.
- I am concerned that we experimentally are NOT ready to do the pp measurements (and to lesser degree for dA) since the inel counters we used last January did in fact not work well- and we have yet to demonstrate in analysis that we can normalize the data properly. To really engage in this program another set of counters would have to be developed.
I do agree that we did not record enough pp data in Jan. and this should be redone, but the present state of analysis does
not tell us we are ready to do so.
-In terms of the gluon saturation description
it is correct that the pp acts as a reference for dA (or better pA), so in sense to explore this one should
- To me the dA is probably not the best reference, while pA would be better, albeit not likely from the macjine point of view for several years. one example is the intrinsic non- description.
It is also unfortunate that you have not brought your point up earlier since I did in fact circulate both at the collaboratrion meeting
as well as late June the intended species for the draft/proposal and had not envisioned a difference of opinion at this late stage. Never the less we should have a discussion on this and do welcome additional comments from others.
We do agree on the priority one, and that 3 speciies is not realistic.
Politically the running of the AuAu is not a sure thing (star and phobos may very well /likely not want this!)
This is clearly the main agenda to push and having good arguments for and then possibly leave the other priorities
more open
cheers
Flemming
------------------------------------------------------
Flemming Videbaek
Physics Department
Brookhaven National Laboratory
tlf: 631-344-4106
fax 631-344-1334
e-mail: videbaek@bnl.gov
----- Original Message -----
From: Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje
To: brahms-l@bnl.gov
Cc: gardhoje@nbi.dk
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 3:21 PM
Subject: Rhic Beam Use proposal DISCUSSIONl
Dear Flemming,
It is unfortunate that the (very) provisional draft for the RBUP is transmitted during a weekend, normally not considered working hours, and with submission deadline on firstcoming monday. That does not leave much time for the collaborations comments or reflexion.
I have however taken the time to peruse the forwarded draft. I will separately forward to you my more detailed comments on wording etc.,as time allows.
Here, I wish, however, to raise the central issue of BRAHMS priorities for run 3.
In my opinion the main priorities are:
1) as much Au+Au as we can get, for -supplementing missing settings for the hadronic survey
- focus on selected high statistics measurements ( high pt, HBT, coalescence, decays etc...)
2) decent p+p data at forward angles as refenence for the Au+Au.
In my mind, the d+Au, although 'a la mode' and favored by PHENIX and STAR is NOT our main 2nd priority. Of course we shall take data, if
that is the RHIC decision, but more useful for the ongoing physics is the 'elementary' reference spectra at all rapidities, notably the forward.
I hold the opinion that a 3 beam species program is not avisable, as development overhead is prohibitive.
I hope that the collaboration will have time and occasion to contribute to this discussion.
cheers
JJ
____________________________________________________________
Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Sc.
Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tlf: (+45) 35 32 53 09, secr. (+45) 35 32 52 09, Fax: (+45) 35 32 50 16.
UNESCO Natl. Comm., secr. (+45) 33 92 52 16.
Email: gardhoje@nbi.dk.
____________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: Flemming Videbaek
To: brahms-l@bnl.gov
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:57 PM
Subject: Rhic Beam Use proposal
Dear Collaborator,
As discussed at the collaboration meeting in May, and also in an e-mail a while before QM the Beam Use proposal for
run-3 (FY2003) has to be submitted by Monday afternoon at 4.30 pm Due to QM02 and my subsequent vacation the first draft has not been available before. I have had very little input from, the previous mailings that outlined the intended beam Use proposal, so the draft attached
to this e-mail should follows that outline. Some details i.e. required Luminosities still have to be worked out , and will be done so over the weekend.
It is my intention to prepare a next draft by Sunday, but all comments received before Monday noon EDT will be duely considered.
I think the draft has about the right overall length; I will in particular be glad to receive suggested rewording of text, paragraphs,
input to the physics justifcations. The real battelewill be during the PAC meeting on August 26 since the requests
from the experiments are not very likely to overlap very well.
We have in CDR as well as in previous RBUPs always mention the desire to measure clusters (d,t and heavier) but have never given
a real estimate for what is needed. I think if we are to keep this we should evaluate if this can be done within the ~7 weeks of Au-Au
running with at most 7*35 microb(-1)
best regards
Flemming
The document is attached as both a word doc as well as an pdf file.
------------------------------------------------------
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 : Sat Aug 10 2002 - 17:22:17 EDT