[Hps] Guidelines for Upcoming HPS Talks

[Jaros, John A.]

Oops. We took 1/3 of a PAC week of data at 0.5 mm, which is 7/3 PAC days.
Sorry. Thanks Norman for pointing this out.
John

-----Original Message-----
From: Jaros, John A. 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 10:04 AM
To: 'hps at jlab.org'
Subject: Guidelines for Upcoming HPS Talks

Dear HPS,

We are all justifiably proud of what HPS accomplished in the 2015 Engineering Run, and we have trumpeted our successes to JLAB management and DOE. The reach plots we showed them, attached above, come with some caveats that general audiences might not appreciate or bother to pay attention to. We should be conservative about what we claim and careful not to feed possible false impressions. 

So, the HPS EC is asking anyone who will give an HPS talk in the next month or two to follow the following guidelines:

1. HPS Reach Plot.
Please reference just the PPC approved reach plot given here:
https://confluence.slac.stanford.edu/display/hpsg/Publications+and+Presentations

It is appropriate for 2 PAC weeks at 1.1 and 2.2 GeV, and 3 PAC weeks at 4.4 GeV with a fully efficient and performant detector. Point out that we ran at 1.05 GeV, accumulated 7/3 of a PAC week of data at our canonical running conditions, and are just now evaluating actual luminosities, detector efficiencies, and detector resolutions, so we don't yet know the Engineering Run's reach. It is substantially less than what's shown.

2. Engineering Run Performance Plots are all Preliminary.
They are shown to demonstrate that to zeroth order, the Ecal and tracker and trigger and....all worked for HPS in its design configuration at 0.5 mm from the beam. Detailed performance studies and efficiencies and calibrations and alignment are all in process and will only be presented when they are mature and approved.

3. Will HPS have a physics result from the Engineering Run?
Too early to say. We hope so.

4. Will HPS get more running in FY2016?
Too early to say. We hope so.

For the HPS EC,
John