[Brahms-l] Fw: Re: RHIC energy error]

Hi
If someone has an opinion please let me know. I would think reproducibility
is the major concern.

Flemming



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wolfram Fischer" <Wolfram.Fischer@bnl.gov>
To: "Flemming Videbaek" <videbaek@bnl.gov>; <mdbaker@bnl.gov>; "Bill
Christie" <christie@bnl.gov>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 2:10 PM
Subject: [Fwd: Re: RHIC energy error]


> Bill, Flemming and Mark,
>
> I had ask Mike about the beam energy tolerances
> at store. If any of you has tighter tolerances,
> please let me know.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wolfram
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: RHIC energy error
> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:13:13 -0500
> From: Michael J. Tannenbaum <mjt@bnl.gov>
> To: Wolfram Fischer <Wolfram.Fischer@bnl.gov>
> CC: Michael J. Tannenbaum <mjt@bnl.gov>
>
> Dear Wolfram,
>       Our requirement on the beam energy, assuming equal energies is
> <0.5 %. I would say <0.2% on each beam energy, <0.4% on the c.m.
> energy. This applies for different species or different runs. For a
> given RHIC run from fill to fill, I think that <0.1% repeatability for
> beam energies seems reasonable.
>
>      Regarding the beam energy vs the c.m. energy, I think that the c.m.
> energy is the more sensitive paramater because all the high pT
> processes go like pt/sqrt(s) to the 6th power. Errors in the individual
> beam energies for a fixed c.m. energy move the mid rapidity point
> slightly and probably not significantly. However nothing is very
> sensitive to this motion. You should check with Brahms,
> videbaek@bnl.gov  or Phobos (mdbaker@bnl.gov).
>
> Please keep me posted on what you decide.
>                             Mike Tannenbaum,
>                             Group Leader, BNL/PHENIX group
>
> -- 
> Wolfram.Fischer@bnl.gov
> Tel. +1-631-344-5452
> Brookhaven National Laboratory
> Bldg. 911B, Upton, NY 11973, USA
>


_______________________________________________
Brahms-l mailing list
Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov
http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-l