[Rsidis-mgmt] FY25 running

[Mark Kevin Jones]

Hi,
            After looking at the beam schedule again , I realized that I was mistake about the 4 weeks.
The LAD running should end on June 18th . The 20 weeks running would end on Aug 18th.
So it is actually 8 calendar weeks for R-sidis in this run period and then 33 calendar days
in FY26.  Sorry for any confusion.

Cheers,
            Mark
________________________________
From: Rsidis-mgmt <rsidis-mgmt-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Rolf Ent <ent at jlab.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2025 10:04 AM
To: Dave Gaskell <gaskelld at jlab.org>; rsidis-mgmt at jlab.org <rsidis-mgmt at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: [Rsidis-mgmt] FY25 running

Hi Dave, all,

So split as four weeks this year and the rest next year. Four weeks is about 14 PAC days but let's be somewhat conservative and say 10 PAC days.

My pragmatic preference would still be to treat the two run periods as separate experiments, so is there any scan (including R_SIDIS and nuc_R_SIDIS) we can likely complete in 10 PAC days? If so, we may strongly argues for completion this FY25, i.e., have three energies. Yes, I know this may add overhead, but I do think it is an approach we should consider (if possible at all). My view, but others may have much better ideas,

best regards,  Rolf

________________________________
From: Dave Gaskell <gaskelld at jlab.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2025 9:56 AM
To: Rolf Ent <ent at jlab.org>; rsidis-mgmt at jlab.org <rsidis-mgmt at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: FY25 running

Hi Rolf, all -

Mark just came by office and we discussed the impact of the reduced running.

For now, Mark's plan to finish LAD as scheduled, use what time is left in FY25 to run as much of R-SIDIS as we can, and then continue R-SIDIS in the next run period.  Looking at the calendar, it appears we would get about 4 weeks this year and the rest next year.

So it looks like our mission is to figure out the optimized plan for breaking the running into 2 run periods.  During the time period we're looking at next year, Hall A is off and Hall B is at 1 or 2 pass (and Hall D at 5 pass as usual), so that looks totally compatible with R-SIDIS running at 3,4, and 5 pass.  The gradient is scheduled to be slightly different (2.2 GeV per pass), so we would need to tweak kinematics a little I guess.

Regards,
Dave

On 3/27/25 9:13 AM, Rolf Ent wrote:
Hi all,

not unexpected that we get all kind of turmoil from the year-long continuing resolution situation coupled with uncertainty for FY26. Do the five weeks solely come from R_SIDIS, i.e., what does it mean for how many calendar days or PAC-equivalent days we can assume? And the issue may also be the alignment of energies, presumably for most of our time Hall A is at the highest energy and we have some choice.

Overall, we should just get some complete scans for R_SIDIS, as whatever we get is new and the world is in eager anticipation. Plus the recent theory calculations start hinting that R_SIDIS may be higher than the naive R_DIS assumption, so we will gather interesting results either way. So that is my view, we should be pragmatic and make sure we prioritize to always get some R scans out. Same with R_SIDIS in nuclei. Something is better than nothing.

I am sure we can stare at the various kinematics tables to figure something out. But we do need to know the rough idea of days and flexibility in energies?

Best regards,  Rolf

________________________________
From: Rsidis-mgmt <rsidis-mgmt-bounces at jlab.org><mailto:rsidis-mgmt-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Dave Gaskell <gaskelld at jlab.org><mailto:gaskelld at jlab.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2025 8:55 AM
To: rsidis-mgmt at jlab.org<mailto:rsidis-mgmt at jlab.org> <rsidis-mgmt at jlab.org><mailto:rsidis-mgmt at jlab.org>
Subject: [Rsidis-mgmt] FY25 running

Hi all -

Douglas Higinbotham announced at the 7:45 meeting this morning that
budget guidance to the lab has arrived, and that the lab will need to
reduce the running for FY25 from 25 to 20 weeks.  No word on how this
will be divided amongst experiments, but we should look into options for
reducing needed beam time for R-SIDIS.

Regards,
Dave

_______________________________________________
Rsidis-mgmt mailing list
Rsidis-mgmt at jlab.org<mailto:Rsidis-mgmt at jlab.org>
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/rsidis-mgmt

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rsidis-mgmt/attachments/20250327/efc05288/attachment.html>