[clas12_rgk] draft of response letter to CCC from run group K

[burkert]

All,

I agree with intention of the text. However, I suggest to downplay the 
6.5 vs 6.4 GeV. I don't think it is such a big deal and we have to deal 
with that later again as the machine energy will never be exactly the 
same as in previous run periods. We have to learn how to deal with 
slight energy variations in an effective way.

Typo: In the next to last paragraph please delete the first "during" in 
the string " during as soon as possible during the November RG..

Regards,
Volker


On 10/25/18 7:41 AM, Annalisa D'Angelo wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> after last RGK meeting, some additional  thinking and exchange of 
> information with Raffaella, I have put together a draft letter to 
> answer the CCC request information, which you may find at:
>
> https://userweb.jlab.org/~annalisa/hybrid_baryons/RGK_response_to_CCC.docx 
>
>
> In a nut shell I would like to propose that the new trigger requiring 
> a central hadron could be implemented and commissioned as soon as 
> possible during RGA, not to loose time during our assigned RGK data 
> taking. RGA could take all the Spring data taking in return.
>
> This would optimize the overall efficiency.
>
> Please let me know your opinion on the matter.
>
> Any comment/correction/suggestion is highly appreciated
>
> All the best
>
> Annalisa
>
> p.s. we  may discuss the matter tomorrow at the RGK weekly meeting.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clas12_rgk/attachments/20181025/50c1ee84/attachment.html>