[Rgc] Jeopardy

[Sebastian Kuhn]

Dear members of RGC,

as you know, we have been put on the “jeopardy list” (no, that is NOT a fun game on TV). I have been unable to convince Bob McKeown otherwise, so we MUST be ready to defend our set of experiments at the upcoming PAC.

As also announced earlier, the first step is to write a short update that must be submitted by June 1. Victoria has set up an overleaf project at
https://www.overleaf.com/7616737755xftcmfccrjvh
where you can see the (continuously updating) draft of that paper. A snapshot in time is attached. I think overall this is probably in relatively good shape (mostly thanks to Chris!) - the main task will be to prepare well for the PAC presentation. 

However, I am asking ALL Run Group C spokespersons to take a look and make any edits that they would consider beneficial for the run group. In particular, I am frankly a bit worried about the total number of PAC days that have been previously approved - 185 - which correspond to a full calendar year. The PAC may well be more strict than last year (where the whole process was basically a rubberstamp), and we may have to defend the full length of the approved time. In this context, keep in mind that our runtime request we submitted last year is for 60 PAC days on deuterium and 30 PAC days on hydrogen, mostly because the FoM of a polarized deuteron target (for neutron observables) is at best a factor 2 below that of a polarized proton target. Furthermore, this decision was driven by the fact that we did not have a convincing simulation that we can run with the FT in the acceptance while rastering at full luminosity; hence, we proposed to run, in this first installment of RGC, those experiments in RGC that did not specifically require the FT in their approved proposals. All of which is to say that we will have to defend an extra 90 days on hydrogen with the FT, for DVCS on the proton. Of course, those 90 days could be beneficial for many other channels (inclusive, pi0 SIDIS, …) or we could decide to run part of those 90 days on deuterium, as well (for nDVCS). I’m not necessarily saying that we need to make that decision now, but we need to make a strong argument to keep those 90 extra days. In this spirit, please take a look at the present Update and work in particular to make YOUR physics case stronger. Of course, this will be even more important in preparation to the PAC presentation.

Hoping you all stay healthy and well - Sebastian


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Run_Group_C_Jeopardy_Update.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 185015 bytes
Desc: Run_Group_C_Jeopardy_Update.pdf
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc/attachments/20200331/eb28e45f/attachment-0001.pdf>