[Frost] Two cents worth

[Michael Dugger]

Yes: gamma n -> pi- p. Thanks for catching that :)

I think the best way to deal with this is to take this as an extension of 
g9b. This means that the extension would be calibrated with the g9b data. 
I don't think there is enough manpower to treat the extension as a 
separate running period with separate cooks and calibrations.

If we were to cook and calibrate the data as g9b data, I would like to 
analyze the gamma n -> pi- p reaction. I am in good position to do this.

Any disagreements?

-Michael

On Mon, 24 May 2010, Bill Briscoe wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> I believe you mean gamma n -> pi- p. Yes, I believe that this is a unique opportunity that should not be lost. We should look for the best physics to get out of this in a short time. I agree with Barry that we should not hunt for peaks, but look where we are sure to see something. This might lead to the allocation of more time if that is possible.
>
> Bill
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Dugger <dugger at jlab.org>
> Date: Monday, May 24, 2010 11:07 pm
> Subject: [Frost] Two cents worth
> To: frost at jlab.org
>
>> Somewhat obvious stuff:
>> * Running FROST with a deuteron target for three weeks without having
>> to
>> go through the PAC is a unique opportunity.
>> * There is only enough time to run at one coherent edge energy.
>> * We have to figure out the best possible physics motivation to
>> determine
>> the edge energy to run at.
>> * At the lower energies we are almost guaranteed of getting a usable
>> signal for gamma p -> pi- p.
>>
>> An issue we need to address: Who is going to analyze the data? There
>> is a
>> real possibility that the person who does pi- p will be the only one
>> to
>> get any usable physics. Is that enough motivation for the effort of
>> all
>> involved?
>>
>> -Michael
>> _______________________________________________
>> Frost mailing list
>> Frost at jlab.org
>>
>