[Olympus] Forwarded message from Stan Belostoski
Douglas Kenneth Hasell
hasell at MIT.EDU
Tue Sep 15 06:21:35 EDT 2009
Cheers,
Douglas
26-415 M.I.T. Tel: +1 (617) 258-7199
77 Massachusetts Avenue Fax: +1 (617) 258-5440
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA E-mail: hasell at mit.edu
Begin forwarded message:
> From: olympus-bounces at MIT.EDU
> Date: September 15, 2009 5:44:35 AM EDT
> To: olympus-owner at mit.edu
> Subject: Auto-discard notification
>
> The attached message has been automatically discarded.
> From: "Belostotski, Stanislav" <stanislav.belostotski at desy.de>
> Date: September 15, 2009 5:44:18 AM EDT
> To: Richard G Milner <milner at mit.edu>
> Cc: olympus at mit.edu
> Subject: Re: [Olympus] Fwd: questions prior to review
>
>
> Dear Richard,
> As for competing experiments (item 1 in Elke's mail), find please
> attached a slide from my talk in PNPI related to Novosibirsk
> experiment. The experiment is on the floor and ready to take data.
> however they have serious problems with running expenses
> (electricity), which is getting even deeper because of lower
> luminosity.The projected accuracy is about 1% (blue points). To me a
> serious drawback of the experiment is poor PID (no magnetic field,
> bgr.contamination's.
> With best regards Stanb
>
> Richard G Milner wrote:
>> Dear OLYMPUS colleagues,
>> I received this message from Elke this morning. We should make an
>> effort to
>> address these issues in our talks.
>> regards,
>> Richard
>> ----- Forwarded message from elke at kirk.desy.de -----
>> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:09:34 +0200 (CEST)
>> From: Elke-Caroline Aschenauer <elke at kirk.desy.de>
>> Reply-To: Elke-Caroline Aschenauer <elke at kirk.desy.de>
>> Subject: questions prior to review
>> To: "Lehner, Frank" <frank.lehner at desy.de>
>> Dear all,
>> in view of the restricted time tomorrow for the review here some
>> questions, which occurred to me reading the TDR.
>> The questions are organized according to the sections in the TDR.
>> Chapter 1:
>> How does Olympus compare with the other experiments proposed to
>> study TPE
>> -- advantages and disadvantages
>> Can you elaborate a bit which stability of the detector was reached
>> during the running of BLAST at MIT.
>> Chapter 2:
>> What is the material of the beam pipe.
>> Is Beryllium considered because of synchrotron radiation.
>> Are there drawings of the collimator system including the synchrotron
>> radiation fans depending on their origin. It was not clear the
>> collimator system is one or two stage.
>> Which type of beam slopes and drifts can be tolerated.
>> Chapter 3:
>> GEM-detectors:
>> It is not completely clear the design for the GEM detector used in
>> the
>> lumi detector and for the tracking upgrade are the same or
>> different, if
>> they are different why?
>> In view of the time scale and complexity of the detector would it
>> not be
>> good to agree on one design.
>> Is there any interference (manpower, components) of the GEMs for the
>> lumi-detector, which are close to the MIT STAR GEM tracker, with the
>> production of the star gem tracker.
>> ToF-system:
>> why is the resolution so bad, for GlueX with similar bars the
>> resolutions
>> achieved are better than < 100ps
>> http://www.jlab.org/Hall-D/reviews/Tracking_PID_REVIEW_Mar08/Final%20Talks/T7-tof-smith.pdf
>> yes the bars are wider by a factor of 2 but a factor 3 less
>> resolution.
>> What is required on resolution for the experiment.
>> Chapter 4:
>> Are there any requirements on the beam position and slope stability
>> page 60: I must admit that I don't understand the statement that
>> bhabha
>> and moeller scattering are the same. Bhabha scattering has a
>> scattering
>> and annihilation part in the cross section, moeller has only the
>> scattering part, which makes the cross sections different by factors
>> depending on the energy difference of the 2 leptons. So you must mean
>> something else.
>> The questions on the GEM are listed above.
>> Overall:
>> it would be nice to see a summary on the performance specifications
>> driven
>> by physics for each of the detector elements.
>> Manpower:
>> Table 8.1
>> column one list faculty are these the people which are counted as
>> FTEs in
>> column 2 or are they in addition.
>> Do the people in column 5 still need to be found and / or financed?
>> Thanks elke
>> ( `,_' )+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=
>> ) `\ -
>> / '. | +
>> | `, Elke-Caroline Aschenauer =
>> \,_ `-/ -
>> ,&&&&&V Brookhaven National Lab +
>> ,&&&&&&&&: Physics Dept., 8 Shore Road =
>> ,&&&&&&&&&&; Bldg. 510D / 2-195 East Patchogue, NY, -
>> | |&&&&&&&;\ 20 Pennsylvania Avenue
>> 11772-5963 +
>> | | :_) _ Upton, NY
>> 11973 =
>> | | ;--' | Tel.: 001-631-344-4769 Tel.:
>> 001-631-569-4290 -
>> '--' `-.--. | Fax.: 001-631-344-1334 Cell:
>> 001-757-256-5224 +
>> \_ | |---' from DESY:
>> 6130-4769 =
>> `-._\__/ Mail:
>> elke at mail.desy.de -
>> =-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-
>> +=-+=-+=
>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>> _______________________________________________
>> Olympus mailing list
>> Olympus at mit.edu
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/olympus/attachments/20090915/4c807203/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vepp.ppt
Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
Size: 198656 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/olympus/attachments/20090915/4c807203/vepp.ppt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/olympus/attachments/20090915/4c807203/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Olympus
mailing list