[Frost] A couple of things

[Michael Dugger]

Bill,

The reaction fits nicely with your program. It makes sense for GW to do 
this.

I agree. We have worked well on these type of reactions in the past. 
Perhaps we can work something out.

Take care,
Michael

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Bill Briscoe wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> We have worked together before, it should work. I would like this to include some student training for my students so they can carry on. Let's discuss this among the smaller ASU GWU groups.
>
> Bill
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: dugger at jlab.org
> Date: Monday, June 14, 2010 2:50 pm
> Subject: Re: [Frost] A couple of things
> To: Bill Briscoe <briscoe at gwu.edu>
> Cc: Eugene Pasyuk <pasyuk at jlab.org>, FROST <frost at jlab.org>
>
>> Bill,
>>
>> Did you want to work together on the pppi-? The only way that I am willing
>> to spend time on it, is if I do the data analysis and am first author.
>>
>> I am not willing to fight over that channel. You can have it if you want
>> to do the data analysis. There are plenty of things for me to work on.
>>
>> Take care,
>> Michael
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Eugene,
>>>
>>> To answer one question -- we would also be interested in the pppi-
>>> channel.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Eugene Pasyuk <pasyuk at jlab.org>
>>> Date: Monday, June 14, 2010 3:36 am
>>> Subject: [Frost] A couple of things
>>> To: FROST <frost at jlab.org>
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> There are couple of things on our hands to take care of.
>>>>
>>>> The first one is Run coordination for the next two months between June
>>>>
>>>> 19 and August 13. That's 8 weeks. So far I have not heard voices of
>>>> volunteers except Patrick. I hope you don't expect two of us to cover
>>>>
>>>> these 8 weeks, or do you?
>>>>
>>>> The second is related to the potential three week extension and
>>>> possibility to run with deuteron target. Volker needs written
>>>> justification 1-2 pages with brief description of what and why we are
>>>>
>>>> going to do during this extra time. We also should say who is going
>> to
>>>>
>>>> analyze these data.
>>>> We started this discussion awhile ago. It looks like we reached a
>>>> consensus about what we are going to do. Let me summarize.
>>>> We will run with linearly polarized beam on transversely polarized
>>>> deuteron target. Since the time is limited we can run only one
>>>> coherent
>>>> edge setting. We can concentrate on the kinematical range around W=1.7
>>>>
>>>> GeV. I think it reasonable to set coherent edge probably at 1.2 GeV.
>>>> Earlier Igor compiled and sent out some data to support this
>>>> particular
>>>> energy. We need to summarize to something half a page to a page of
>> text.
>>>> To run with coh_edge at 1.2 the best would be to go with 3 pass beam.
>>>>
>>>> That would be 3.36 GeV electron beam. If we go 4 pass, the end of the
>>>>
>>>> tagging range will be about 0.89 GeV a bit to close to 1.2 GeV.
>>>>
>>>> We can go after three reactions.
>>>> gn->pppi-
>>>> gn->npi+pi-
>>>> gn->K0Lambda
>>>>
>>>> There are no doubts about feasibility of the first two. The cross
>>>> section is large.
>>>> For the third one we need to get some estimates, what we can expect
>> in
>>>>
>>>> terms of statistics and uncertainties. Franz, you did it for HDIce.
>>>> Could you quickly recalculate it for FROST.
>>>> A few other things to consider for experiment configuration.
>>>> Since all of those reaction requires at least two charged particles
>> to
>>>>
>>>> be detected we may go with two sector trigger.
>>>> For the 2pi reaction we would need to detect recoil neutron. It makes
>>>>
>>>> sense to turn on LAC to have better acceptance for neutrons.
>>>> There is also question of torus field polarity. Do we want to run
>>>> reversed polarity (positive inbending) like g13 did or keep it as it
>>>> is now?
>>>>
>>>> We still don't know what material we will have. Two options are being
>>>>
>>>> considered. d-butanol or d-propandiole. All depends on the
>>>> availability
>>>> of proper radical.
>>>> d-butanol is preferable in terms of dilution factor. The figure of
>>>> merit
>>>> butanol vs. propandiole is roughly 1.2.
>>>> As far as the degree of polarization is concerned with both materials
>>>>
>>>> people were able to get 80% polarization.
>>>> Even though we are talking about three week extension realistically
>> we
>>>>
>>>> may expect that we will probably have two weeks for data taking (one
>>>> week for conversion and set up of the target.
>>>>
>>>> Manpower for analysis. The list is open. There are some ideas
>>>> Mike Dugger (ASU) expressed interest to analyze pppi-.
>>>> I would imagine Volker and Steffen would be interested to analyze 2pi?
>>>> KLamda - Franz?
>>>> Please, comment on this.
>>>>
>>>> We have to prepare this justification within two weeks.
>>>>
>>>> -Eugene
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Frost mailing list
>>>> Frost at jlab.org
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Frost mailing list
>>> Frost at jlab.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>