[Clas12_verystrange] pac results

[Eugene Pasyuk]

Yes, we got a home work to do. Here is a brief summary.

There are two issues which are needed to be addressed and presented to 
PAC again.

 1.   Half field vs. full field running requested by other experiments.
    Together with other experiments we need to look at various scenarios:
     1. part time full field part time half field.
     2. some intermediate field setting? 75%?
     3. two region tracking for forward going K^- ?
     4. what is the impact of lower field on others? I've already talked
        briefly with Victor about N* transition form factor experiment.
        They will look into it. We need to talk with DVCS people as well.
     5. .....
 2. Issue of efficiency of Kaon ID. We discussed this at our meetings
    but never completed this study. We need to finish this.

Ideally we should run simulation with full reconstruction to answer all 
those questions.

-Eugene


On 6/22/12 14:11 , Lei Guo wrote:
> On the PAC internal page, you can find the following description:
>
>   The PAC may conditionally approve proposals when additional 
> requirements must be fulfilled before full approval is granted. There 
> are two categories of conditional approval:
>
>   * C2 - must return to the PAC to address concerns or issues to
>     obtain approval,
>   * C1 - must meet designated technical requirements to obtain
>     approval from laboratory management - further PAC review is not
>     required.
>
> The rule for newly conditionally approved 12 GeV proposals is that 
> they must return for approval at one of the next 2 consecutive PAC 
> meetings following the PAC at which they received the conditional 
> approval status.
>
> Proposals that received C2 status at a previous PAC may return to 
> PAC39 to be considered for approval. Proposals with previous 
> conditional approval (C2) that wish to be considered for approval at 
> PAC39 should submit an updated proposal and will be granted a 
> 20-minute presentation at the PAC meeting. Following the public 
> presentation session the PAC will continue its discussions in closed 
> session, and at least one spokesperson should be available either in 
> person or by phone for 24 hours after the public session to answer 
> questions as the PAC's discussion progresses. If approved, the 
> proposals will be considered for rating along with the other approved 
> proposals in the grading session.
>
>
>
> This means we will have to return to one of the two next PAC.
>
> Lei
>
> On Jun 22, 2012, at 2:01 PM, Bill Briscoe wrote:
>
>
>>
>> What is difference between C1 and C2?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: clas12_verystrange-bounces at jlab.org 
>> <mailto:clas12_verystrange-bounces at jlab.org>
>> [mailto:clas12_verystrange-bounces at jlab.org] On Behalf Of Lei Guo
>> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 1:53 PM
>> To: clas12_verystrange at jlab.org <mailto:clas12_verystrange at jlab.org>
>> Subject: [Clas12_verystrange] pac results
>>
>> PAC results is already available at
>> http://www.jlab.org/exp_prog/PACpage/PAC39/PAC39_Results.pdf
>> , we are only conditionally approved (C2). :( I will find out more later.
>> Since it is not defer or reject, I guess this is still acceptable.
>>
>> Thanks for the hard work that everyone has put into this proposal.
>>
>> Lei
>> _______________________________________________
>> Clas12_verystrange mailing list
>> Clas12_verystrange at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_verystrange
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Clas12_verystrange mailing list
>> Clas12_verystrange at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_verystrange
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Clas12_verystrange mailing list
> Clas12_verystrange at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_verystrange


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clas12_verystrange/attachments/20120622/2024e634/attachment-0002.html>