Re: BRAHMS beam use proposal

From: Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje (gardhoje@nbi.dk)
Date: Sun Aug 31 2003 - 15:32:46 EDT

  • Next message: jipa@brahms.fizica.unibuc.ro: "Re: BRAHMS beam use proposal"
    Hi Flemming,
    
    Here are my latest (and last) comments to the Rbup - in red and overstrike!
    Suitable that it is labor day weekend!
    
    You have with Salomonic skill defused the lower energy vs ligther ion 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: Sunday, August 31, 2003 7:48 PM
      Subject: BRAHMS beam use proposal
    
    
    
    
      Dear Collaborator,
    
      Due to the Labour day weekend the final-final deadline is not today
      Sunday but rather that it is available Tusday Morning for Tom Kirk.
      Since I will likely be away from the lab most of next week I will like
      to send it to Kirk by tomorrow Monday late afternoon. The version
      enclosed is based on the general  comments received from NBI, Oslo,
      Bergen, Krakow together with detailed contributioins, corrections and
      suggestions from Dana,Chellis, Ramiro, Michael Murray, Steve and Brendan
      Fox. From the discussions so far there is obvious not a consensus on the
      secondary goals, so the present version represents my be best attempts
      to consolidate the points of view. There will be an opportunity to
      develop the arguments for the presentation to the PAC on September 29. I
      will review and includes as best possible comments received by Monday at
      2 pm EDT (19.00 GMT).
    
    
      I think the d-Au, both because it is actually uncertain how stong such
      request is, and how the collaboration could handle this in terms of
      man-power has to be qualified - and thus not a definite request. In all
      cases it should come following the other programs. At some level it
      really belongs better in the 'future' document - maybe this should be
      said here. For this reason the text enclose two alternatives for this
      section, one written by Ramiro ,and another by Michael+additions from
      me. Please comment on this.
    
      I will value comments, and if suggestions then specifics textual
      changes. The most recent e-mail from Kirk indicates that the PAC will be
      mainly concerned with the Run-4, such that actual decisions on run 5,6
      will be part of this falls longer term planning with the PAC meeting
      once again late fall (November).
    
      regards
          Flemming
    
    
      ------------------------------------------------------
      Flemming Videbaek
      Physics Department
      Brookhaven National Laboratory
    
      tlf: 631-344-4106
      fax 631-344-1334
      e-mail: videbaek@bnl.gov
    
    
      -- 
      Flemming Videbaek
      Brookhaven National Laboratory
      Physics Department
      tlf 631-344-4106
      fax 631-344-1334
      e-mail: videbaek@bnl.gov
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 31 2003 - 15:39:35 EDT