[Frost] Two cents worth

[Igor Strakovsky]

Mike, it would be great if you can do that

See you tomorrow, sorry today, Igor

On Tue, 25 May 2010 00:04:11 -0400 (EDT), Michael Dugger <dugger at jlab.org> 
wrote:

> 
> 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