[Halld-pid-upgrade] PID upgrade meeting: Friday September 11 @ 11 am

[Shepherd, Matthew]

Curtis,

I just talked with Patrizia about this and the rationale is that, while the physics arguments have all been approved by the PAC, they have never been formally presented to the DOE, who will be observers at this review.  I vote for not putting this stuff in the TDR:  why one needs to identify kaons and how we choose to do it are sort of separate things.  I think we should provide the committee with the TDR and an excerpt from the PAC proposal that discusses the physics justification.  (We should avoid including other DIRC information in the PAC excerpt that may confuse the committee.)

Matt

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Shepherd, Associate Professor
Department of Physics, Indiana University, Swain West 265
727 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405

Office Phone:  +1 812 856 5808

> On Sep 16, 2015, at 3:31 PM, Curtis A. Meyer <cmeyer at cmu.edu> wrote:
> 
> Does that mean all of GlueX physics, or just the role the DIRC will play? Presumably the
> latter. I guess that means I will need more physics in my talk to make sure that we cover 
> this. The question is how much more of the the PAC proposal do we put in the TDR?
> Alternatively, we could just provide the committee with excerpts from the PAC proposal 
> to discuss the science, and how the DIRC would help this.
> 
> Curtis
> 
> ---------
> Curtis A. Meyer			MCS Associate Dean for Faculty and Graduate Affairs
> Wean:    (412) 268-2745	Professor of Physics
> Doherty: (412) 268-3090	Carnegie Mellon University
> Fax:         (412) 681-0648	Pittsburgh, PA 15213
> curtis.meyer at cmu.edu	http://www.curtismeyer.com/
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Justin Stevens <jrsteven at jlab.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> The official charge for the review is now posted on the wiki page and at https://halldweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/3/35/DIRC_review_CHARGE.pdf  It is the same as the CLAS12 RICH review, except we have an additional first bullet point:  
>> 
>> 1. Evaluate the significance and merit of the project's scientific goals.
>> 
>> So we'll need to emphasize the studies in the PAC proposal during the review to make sure the science case is clear.
>> 
>> -Justin
>> 
>> On Sep 11, 2015, at 12:30 PM, Justin Stevens wrote:
>> 
>>> The wiki page for the 2013 CLAS12 RICH review is https://clasweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/2013_September_5-6_RICH_Project_Review.  The direct links for the charge and report from the committee are:
>>> 
>>> http://infn.fe.infn.it/~mcontalb/JLAB12/RICH_project_review/RICH_review_sep13_charge.pdf
>>> http://infn.fe.infn.it/~mcontalb/JLAB12/RICH/Reviews/CLAS12-RICH-Sep_5_6_2013_Final.pdf
>>> 
>>> I'll follow up with Rolf and Patrizia about our specific charge, but my guess it will be similar.
>>> 
>>> FYI, 
>>> Justin
>>> 
>>> On Sep 10, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Justin Stevens wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> 
>>>> There will be a PID upgrade meeting tomorrow at 11 am JLab time in room A110.  
>>>> 
>>>> https://halldweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/September_11,_2015_PID_Upgrade
>>>> 
>>>> -Justin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Halld-pid-upgrade mailing list
>>> Halld-pid-upgrade at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-pid-upgrade
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Halld-pid-upgrade mailing list
>> Halld-pid-upgrade at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-pid-upgrade
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Halld-pid-upgrade mailing list
> Halld-pid-upgrade at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-pid-upgrade