[clas12_rgk] Fwd: impact of schedule change on RG-K
Annalisa D'Angelo
annalisa.dangelo at roma2.infn.it
Mon Oct 15 11:35:25 EDT 2018
Dear Latifa, dear All,
as FX already said, the matter has been discussed during the Run group K
meeting last Friday.
Volker reported that the new machine schedule foresees the change of
energy starting from November 29th instead of November 19th, with a loss
of 10 days of run.
See the attached slide.
At present the run group K run is planned for 11 (solar) days at 7.5 GeV
and 8 (solar) days at 6.5 GeV.
It has been discussed the option of requesting additional 7-10 days
during the spring data taking extension on March-April, after rung group
B period. This would require Hall-B asking for 3 or 4 pass beam. The
persons attending the meeting agreed to submit the request at the
Friday meeting with the Laboratory management.
Now the question posed by the CCC is two-fold:
1. would the 2018 data be enough for run group K to provide a publication?
2. what would be the impact of an additional week of data taking in
spring 2019?
I understand that while the former run schedule included run group K
because the available beam energy is incompatible with all other run
group requests, the additional 2019 spring week could be also used by
run group A, for example. So the decision to run at different number of
passes (6.4 GeV or 8.8 GeV) must be well motivated.
Before answering I would appreciate collecting your suggestions or comments.
All the best
Annalisa
p.s. no time line has been posed in the request, but I assume the sooner
the better...
Il 15/10/18 14:03, Volker Burkert ha scritto:
> We all like to have a peal meal instead of taken data 'piece-meal'. 😉
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 15, 2018, at 7:40 AM, Francois-Xavier Girod <fxgirod at jlab.org
> <mailto:fxgirod at jlab.org>> wrote:
>
>> Dear Latifa
>>
>> We had a discussion at last week's RG-K meeting, but it was only few
>> participants, so I think this is why Annalisa is continuing a
>> discussion here.
>>
>> During the meeting we discussed that getting PAC days peace-meal for
>> a short experiment is detrimental and will affect systematical
>> uncertainties. One simple argument however was that having data is
>> better not having data at all. We agreed with the proposal of getting
>> one week for RG-K and three weeks for RG-A. We did not decide on the
>> number of passes we would request.
>>
>> Personally I hope that RG-K will be fully scheduled in the future for
>> the remainder of the PAC approved days, even if it means we have to
>> wait a bit longer. Increased systematical uncertainties is contrary
>> to the physics goal of our experiment.
>>
>> Best regards
>> FX
>>
>> Best regards
>> FX
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 1:27 PM Latifa Elouadrhiri <latifa at jlab.org
>> <mailto:latifa at jlab.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Annalisa,
>>
>> Is this related to the email from Volker last week, we didn't
>> hear from you on that email of request from RGK? Did you make
>> request of RGK on our behalf and how many weeks did you request?
>> where does one week come from?
>>
>> Could you please give us more information on the running
>> conditions beam energies?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Latifa
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/15/18 6:49 AM, Annalisa D'Angelo wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> the CCC is asking us about the impact on the physics of Run
>>> Group K if we add one week of data taking in spring 2019 to the
>>> three weeks (instead of four) now expected for 2018.
>>>
>>> They would like to know if we will have enough data to produce
>>> some publication from the 2018 data (eventually including the
>>> additional week in 2019).
>>>
>>> Please send me your comments and your opinion about the
>>> possibility of an early publication from your proposed experiment.
>>>
>>> I will collect the information and write the draft for a response.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Annalisa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Messaggio Inoltrato --------
>>> Oggetto: impact of schedule change on RG-K
>>> Data: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 22:48:04 -0400
>>> Mittente: Raffaella De Vita <Raffaella.Devita at ge.infn.it>
>>> <mailto:Raffaella.Devita at ge.infn.it>
>>> A: Annalisa D'Angelo <annalisa.dangelo at roma2.infn.it>
>>> <mailto:annalisa.dangelo at roma2.infn.it>
>>> CC: burkert <burkert at jlab.org> <mailto:burkert at jlab.org>,
>>> Michael H Wood <wood5 at canisius.edu> <mailto:wood5 at canisius.edu>,
>>> Marco.Battaglieri <battaglieri at ge.infn.it>
>>> <mailto:battaglieri at ge.infn.it>, Marco Contalbrigo
>>> <mcontalb at fe.infn.it> <mailto:mcontalb at fe.infn.it>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Annalisa,
>>> on Friday we had a CCC meeting to discuss the change in the accelerator schedule for 2018 and 2019.
>>> The discussion was specifically focussed on the 4 week extension that are being considered for the Spring 2019.
>>> The rational we have been following is to use this additional time to compensate for the losses that
>>> the different Run Groups will have for the delayed start of the machine after the summer shutdown
>>> and the other changes that are being done to the schedule. Among these, the extension of the 10.6 GeV
>>> running to after Thanksgiving and the consequent shortening of the low energy running at the end of
>>> this year are directly affecting Run Group. In this regard, what is being considered is to assign to
>>> Run Group K a week in the Spring 2019 after RG-B. To take a sound decision on this,
>>> we would like to have your feedback on the possibility for RG-K to have a publication from the 2018 run
>>> with the reduced time and on what would be the gain if another week of beam would be allocated in the Spring.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Raffaella
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> clas12_rgk mailing list
>>> clas12_rgk at jlab.org <mailto:clas12_rgk at jlab.org>
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> clas12_rgk mailing list
>> clas12_rgk at jlab.org <mailto:clas12_rgk at jlab.org>
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> clas12_rgk mailing list
>> clas12_rgk at jlab.org <mailto:clas12_rgk at jlab.org>
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clas12_rgk mailing list
> clas12_rgk at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgk
--
================================================
Prof. Annalisa D'Angelo
Dip. Fisica, Universita' di Roma "Tor Vergata"
INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, Rome Italy
email:annalisa.dangelo at roma2.infn.it
Jefferson Laboratory, Newport News, VA USA
Email: annalisa at jlab.org
Tel: + 39 06 72594562
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clas12_rgk/attachments/20181015/69b94b1c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Run_Schedule.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 40516 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clas12_rgk/attachments/20181015/69b94b1c/attachment-0001.jpg>
More information about the clas12_rgk
mailing list