[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