[BDXlist] BDX talk at US Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter workshop
Andrea Celentano
andrea.celentano at ge.infn.it
Thu Mar 16 12:53:00 EDT 2017
Dear Marco,
thanks for your comments.
- some of the graphs and picture are out of date and should be
updated: I'd suggest to keep the detector design consistent with what
described in the proposal (we have an arxiv public paper on it too!).
- I'd show how the signal will look like in the detector (including
efficiency, crystal multiplicity, ... ) to give the feeling that the
detector option is adequate to detect the Chi
Graphs updated with plots from proposal / PAC presentation. Detector
design updated.
- You may also want to mention that the R&D of this experiment started 4
years ago (we presented a LOI at PAC42 starting to work on it well
before!) and now we are ready to assemble the real experiment
R&D and LOI mentioned
- do we want to address (another backup slides ) the possible BDX
competitors (experiments such as LSND E137) and report the recent
results of miniboone showing that we can do much better (in termn of
EOT, background, ...)?
This is what I asked for to our theoretician colleagues (Gordan, Eder).
My worry is that a "not-precise" or "not-correct" message will be
immediately rejected by the audience, where experts will be present. In
other words: what can we say about LSND / Miniboone? Is it acceptable to
say that the backgrounds are higher with a proton beam (how much? why?).
If we were comparing LHC vs LEP, clearly the first has an higher bg
(hadronic environment vs leptonic one), but also an higher "production
yield".
Here, how should I introduce this message?
For E137, situation is simpler. The message I'm going to insert in slide
n. 3 (still empty) is that E137 had less EOT, was not optimized for LDM,
and used a less sophisticated technology.
- at some point next week I'd send the slides to Bob , just to have him
informed about what is going on.
Yes, Ideally if I receive other comments by tonight (that was my
deadline), I'll implement this tomorrow morning, circulate v2 tomorrow,
and then we can try to sent to Bob tomorrow evening (Europe time).
Otherwise, on Monday.
- Some messages need to be conveyed more clearly (eg the bdx reach, the
difference with previous beam-dump experiments, the advantages for the
whole LDMA-like activity in assessing the background of a high intense
electron beam experiment) in the spirit of considering BDX as one of the
forst experiment deserving to be funded
Ok, I can stress this more, but I think we need to not sell too much the
fact that the detector is already optimized and the whole experiment
design ready. The PAC asked us to optimize and finalize the detector
design - and "officially" we still need to show that we did this, in
order to move from current C2 rating to a C1 (with a scientific rating
that still we don't have). In other words: if the message from the talk
is too much oriented toward the idea that there's nothing more to do in
the design, someone in the audience may ask why the PAC asked us to
optimize the detector.
Andrea
On 03/16/2017 12:44 PM, Marco Battaglieri wrote:
> Dear Andrea,
> this is a good starting point for the BDX presentation at the ws.
> General comments:
> - some of the graphs and picture are out of date and should be
> updated: I'd suggest to keep the detector design consistent with what
> described in the proposal (we have an arxiv public paper on it too!).
> - Some messages need to be conveyed more clearly (eg the bdx reach,
> the difference with previous beam-dump experiments, the advantages for
> the whole LDMA-like activity in assessing the background of a high
> intense electron beam experiment) in the spirit of considering BDX as
> one of the forst experiment deserving to be funded
> - You may also want to mention that the R&D of this experiment started
> 4 years ago (we presented a LOI at PAC42 starting to work on it well
> before!) and now we are ready to assemble the real experiment
> - I'd show how the signal will look like in the detector (including
> efficiency, crystal multiplicity, ... ) to give the feeling that the
> detector option is adequate to detect the Chi
> - a backup slide with costs/workplan will be useful (we'll decide
> later if to be included in the presentation)
> - do we want to address (another backup slides ) the possible BDX
> competitors (experiments such as LSND E137) and report the recent
> results of miniboone showing that we can do much better (in termn of
> EOT, background, ...)?
> - at some point next week I'd send the slides to Bob , just to have
> him informed about what is going on.
> Here shttps://www.ge.infn.it/~batta/Celentano-3.pdf some detailed
> comments on the slides.
> Cheers
> Marco
>
> Andrea Celentano wrote:
>> Dear Colleagues,
>> you find attached a first draft of the slides I'm going to show at
>> the DOE workshop next week. The talk is 30' + 5'.
>>
>> Slides are not in the final form - but already in a quite definite
>> shape, so that I can circulate them to you to receive feedback and
>> comments.
>>
>> Note that slides n. 5 is missing, as well as slide n. 29. Conclusions
>> still needs to be written properly.
>>
>> Other than your general comments, I'd like to hear the following:
>>
>> * Eder, Gordan: my idea about slide n.5 was to present BDX as a
>> "second generation" dump experiment, dedicated to LDM, after the
>> experiences from E137 and others. Also, I'd like to compare with
>> proton beam-dump experiments (LSND, Miniboone), underlying the
>> complementary (protons: maybe higher production, but higher
>> beam-related backgrounds. Electrons: beam-related backgrounds are
>> lower). Do you think this is reasonable?
>>
>> * Eder, Gordan: can you please have a look at the reach plot (slide
>> n.24)? These were taken from proposal, but I do not know if any MAJOR
>> change in limits from other experiments should be added
>>
>> * Marco, Elton: slides n. 28 and 29 shows the current experiment
>> status and future plans. In slide n. 29 I can show that a realistic
>> cost estimate for facilities (and partially for the detector) has
>> been carried out. What's your opinion about? Is it worth to discuss
>> or it is better to put in the backup?
>>
>> * All: do you think it is better to circulate the slides to people at
>> JLab? At the moment, in particular for the mu pipe test, I am just
>> saying that the plans have been "discussed" with the management. If
>> we want to stress this more (like saying that the plans have been
>> pre-approved, or something like this) then we need to.
>>
>> I expect to receive your feedback within Friday morning (Europe
>> time), so that I can work on this on Friday, circulate again on
>> Friday evening (Europe time), and if necessary circulate to people at
>> JLab.
>>
>> Bests,
>>
>> Andrea
>>
>> I've linked 1 file to this email:
>> CelentanoBDXDOE.pdf
>> <https://app.box.com/s/21ljfawpmw7csc6ne91y4hpqtm1va4p7>(8.0 MB)Box
>> <https://www.box.com/thunderbird>https://app.box.com/s/21ljfawpmw7csc6ne91y4hpqtm1va4p7
>> Mozilla Thunderbird <http://www.getthunderbird.com> makes it easy to
>> share large files over email.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> BDXlist mailing list
>> BDXlist at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/bdxlist
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/bdxlist/attachments/20170316/1cdee2b4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 641 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/bdxlist/attachments/20170316/1cdee2b4/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 766 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/bdxlist/attachments/20170316/1cdee2b4/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the BDXlist
mailing list