From: Dana Beavis (Beavis@sgs1.hirg.bnl.gov)
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 17:09:38 EDT
Flemming and Co., Are there any tests that need to be done before we start a systematic shutdown of the experiment. I took 2 short files today with no collisions just to record some background. This was not done with tracking. We should decide if there are any tests etc to do and the start shutting down. I told Ed earlier in the day that I would let him know tomorrow. dana ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brendan Fox" <fox@drax.Colorado.EDU> To: <brahms-l@bnl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 4:45 PM Subject: Re: end of brahms+phobos pp run > > Hi Dana, > > At this point, there is no merit in keeping the gas system going at BRAHMS > because, based on today's Phil Pile meeting, there is no chance that we will > even get 12-24 hours of collisions. Accordingly, I have asked Ed to shut down > the gas system tomorrow (Thursday) morning. I would like to take a moment > and thank you for keeping the option open even though it looked as if there > was no reason to believe that the wind might shift in our favor ... > > ... brendan > > On Fri, 23 May 2003, Brendan Fox wrote: > > > > > Hi Dana and Ed, > > > > Can we keep the isobutane flowing until Monday? I would like to see the > > machine prove that there is a significant improvement in luminosity before we > > shut down BRAHMS. Let me know ... thanks ... > > > > ... brendan > > > > From: Flemming Videbaek <fvidebaek@optonline.net> > > Subject: Re: end of brahms+phobos pp run > > Reply-to: Flemming Videbaek <videbaek@bnl.gov> > > > > Hi Brendan, > > > > you can talk to Dana/Ed baker about the flowing of the isobutane. That is is > > only real thing that would take time to bring back up anything else is fast - > > I do not like the way it was handled too, but thinks this is one (I think > > Gerry also found it was the preoper way to proceed) . I am at home with > > people working on the house (kitchen floor) > > > > Flemming > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Flemming Videbaek > > Physics Department > > Brookhaven National Laboratory > > > > tlf: 631-344-4106 > > fax 631-344-1334 > > e-mail: videbaek@bnl.gov > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Brendan Fox" <fox@drax..Colorado.EDU> > > To: <brahms-l@bnl.gov> > > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 12:55 PM > > Subject: Re: end of brahms+phobos pp run > > > > > > | > > | Hi Flemming, > > | > > | Can we wait a day or so before we put the experiment in stand-by mode? I > > | think that this decision sucks (especially the manner in which it was made) > > | and would like to see if, over the next day or so, the machine can deliver the > > | luminosity before we consider this decision to be final. What do you think? > > | > > | - brendan > > | > > | On Fri, 23 May 2003, Flemming Videbaek wrote: > > | > > | > Dear collaborator, > > | > > > | > unfortunately I have to bring you one more change in schedule, this not being a good one for Brahms and Phobos. Last > > night we were summoned to a meeting this morning at 9.30 (see encl. e-mail); I managed to get a message to the > > institutional reps on the issue. > > | > > > | > At the meeting T.Roser summarized the evidence for possible higher lum with ferwer collisions points, for most stores > > there is a 20-50% difference for bunches colliding ferwer times, albeit > > | > not for all. T.Kirk commented that the aim as well as justification for the last extension was the possibility to do a > > delta-G measurement in Star and Phenix and he as Associated Lab director for RHIC has the goal the maximize the good > > outcome for this physics.In addition the expected fiscal funding for next year as well as needed upgrades to AGS for > > polarization will make it most likely there will only beam one beam species (au) next year with no pp running > > | > > > | > Based on the input from the machine people (and probably also from Star+Phenix) would like to go to a two collisions > > interection only mode as soon as possible. > > | > > > | > First I and then Wit Busza preseneted arguments for the the phyics that would not be done, and I as well > > | > for the utterly chaotic way planning had been done. > > | > Since of course his mind was made up ahead of time I am quite sure the final decision was to collide at STAR and > > Phenix only following the next store. > > | > I requested that T.kirk send a letter/ e-mail to all collaboration on the decision and what physics would not be > > completed > > | > > > | > This thus is the end of the run-3 at RHIC; shifts are cancelled from ~noon time, and the experiment will be secured > > (stop isobutane, turn down HV etc). > > | > > > | > regards > > | > Flemming. > > | > > > | > ------------------------------------------------------ > > | > Flemming Videbaek > > | > Physics Department > > | > Brookhaven National Laboratory > > | > > > | > tlf: 631-344-4106 > > | > fax 631-344-1334 > > | > e-mail: videbaek@bnl.gov > > | > > > | > > > | > enc 1/ > > | > > > | > -------------- > > | > > > | > Flemming and Wit, > > | > > > | > As you know there seems to be strong evidence that reducing the number of > > | > collision points in RHIC will lead to a substantial increase in the > > | > luminosity for the remaining experiments. Tom Kirk has asked me to organize > > | > a meeting for 9:30 tomorrow morning in Derek's office to discuss the impact > > | > of an early termination for BRAHMS and/or PHOBOS. > > | > > > | > The termination could come as early as tomorrow. > > | > > > | > sorry for the short notice. Please send a representative if you cannot be > > | > there or be available for a discussion at 9:30 by telephone. > > | > > > | > best regards, > > | > Phil- > > | > > > | > > > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 28 2003 - 16:57:24 EDT