[BDXlist] BDX: bg assesment for PAC reviewers
Marco Battaglieri
battaglieri at ge.infn.it
Mon Sep 26 12:14:14 EDT 2016
Dear all,
last week I and Dan had a short chat about a strategy on how the
PAC-suggested bg measurements would match a BDX-DRIFT NSF proposal (to
be submitted by the end of October).
We agreed that we should work in the spirit of the full bg
characterization: the low energy part with BDX-DRIFT and the high
enregy part with BDX-prototype deploying the two detectors.
It's clear that JLab management (as the PAC) has no clear directions for
these tests at JLab (see Elton's discussion with Rolf) and, if we want
to be efficient, we probably better want to propose something and
discuss it with Bob and the PAC (rather than having a discussion
starting from scratch). The drawback of this strategy is that we may do
some useless work, if we we are not interpreting correctly what they want.
We would need to measure the beam-related bg in an experimental
configuration (beam, dump, shielding) as close as possible as the one
proposed in the Proposal but all these conditions together will not be
satisfied at the same time, in the same place. I drafted a table with
the different options specifying the experimental conditions and which
concerns it may address (requires more input from all of you).
Be aware that each of the possible option is almost an experiment per-se
and, before the next PAC, more than one test is difficult to conceive
(we need to find a compromise!).
The options I see are the following:
*Where?**
* *Opportunity (politically)**
* *Beam **(GeV)**
* *Dump**
* *Current**
* *Timescale**
* *shielding**
* *shield staging**
* *logistic**
* *Low E n**
* *High E n**
* *muons from the dump**
* *neutrino**
* *similar to the real set up**
*
JLab Hall-A
5/5: High
10
hall-A
high
dirt only
no
2/5: dig a small hole in front of the dump
yes
yes
yes
probably not
3/5
JLab Hall-A
5/5: High
10
ad-hoc
low
concrete
yes
3/5: much simple
yes
yes
not
not
2/5
JLab Hall-B
4/5: medium
10
hall-B
medium
magnet? concrete?
yes (?)
3/5: the tunnel is accessible
yes
yes
yes
probably not
3/5
Jlab
Hall-D
4/5: medium
10
Hall-D
medium/high
iron/concrete
no
4/5: avove ground, requires all services
yes
yes
yes
probably yes
4/5
LNF BTF
3/5: low/irrilevant
0.75
ad-hoc
medium
possible
yes
5/5: simple, dedicated facility
yes
no
no
no
3/5
SLAC
2/5: competitors?
10
ad-hoc
medium
possible
yes
5/5: simple, dedicated facility
yes
yes
yes
yes (?)
4/5
Votes and comments simply reflect my personal, preliminary (before the
discussion) opinions.
Please do the same exercise, filling the table, and complete it
including other relevant information if you think I missed something to
discuss it at tomorrow's meeting.
We shall define the best configuration (that better matches the PAC
recommendations running a test next spring) and have a plan to propose
at a meeting with Bob, Jim Napolitano and the two reviewers by mid
October to get feedback (from PAC members) and approval (by Bob, since
many of them involve Jlab).
Cheers
Marco
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/bdxlist/attachments/20160926/6ea83ac2/attachment.html>
More information about the BDXlist
mailing list