[Olympus] Response ro OLYMPUS review committee

[Richard G Milner]

Dear Young-Kee,
I am following up on the request of your review committee to provide
supplemental information on a number of issues.

1. The list of OLYMPUS Ph.D. collaborators who are committing more than 50%=
 of
their research time to the experiment over the next three years is attached.
OLYMPUS has over 20 Ph.D. physicists committed to the experiment as their
principal research effort over the next three years.  Together with the 14
graduate students, this represents a very solid core of commitment which can
carry out the experiment, if funding is made available in a timely fashion.

2. The operating costs by institution were calculated by Uwe Schneekloth an=
d are
attached.

3.  We have considered the issue of a backup to our proposed GEM luminosity
monitor.  The collaboration strongly believes the GEM luminosity monitor ca=
n be
available as we propose if the funding is provided to the Hampton Universit=
y and
MIT groups in a timely fashion. Indeed, Michael Kohl has received additional
manpower commitment from senior colleagues at Hampton University to ensure =
that
the GEM luminosity monitor will be available in time.

In addition, given the crucial importance of the luminosity monitor for the
OLYMPUS experiment, the collaboration is pursuing the issue of a
backup/redundant monitor system. We have realized that we have a very good =
fall
back possibility in hand at U. Mainz, which is proven to work and ready to =
take
data.  At Mainz, they have used a lead fluoride calorimeter in the A4 parity
experiment. They have have enough spare parts to equip two arrays of 3x3=3D9
crystals (including readout). If  one would combine this with their readout
electronics, one could take scattered electron  energy spectra with a
resolution of 3.2%/sqrt(E) with a dead time of 20 ns.
Thus, separation of elastic from inelastic scattering is no problem. It all=
ows
even for a coincidence with some other detector, in case one wants to detect
two particles.  The phototubes are equipped with special active voltage
dividers allowing for up to 2 MHz rate. The system has been running now for
years with  almost 10^38 1/s 1/ cm^2 luminosity under 35=B0.  In combination
with a good collimator system, which allows only particles from the target
region, this can be a very good luminosity monitor.

If this shower counter is not needed for the 12 degree elastic scattering
luminosity monitor (as we expect), then it could be considered for a
Moller/Bhabha scattering monitor at ~ 1 degree.  The implications for the
vacuum system downstream of the OLYMPUS target are being considered by Bates
engineers.

4. The collaboration expects to develop a proposed organizational structure=
 for
approval at the next collaboration meeting in about two months. This would
include a Spokesperson, Deputy Spokesperson, Project Manager, and Coordinat=
ors
for subsystems, Monte-Carlo, analysis etc.

5.  Using the OLYMPUS Monte-Carlo simulation code, Doug Hasell is coordinat=
ing
the determination of the detailed detector specifications.  Results are
expected by the next OLYMPUS collaboration meeting.

I hope that this additional information allows the review committee to make=
 a
strong, positive support.  We thank the committee for the many helpful
suggestions and look forward to proceeding to realizing our important
experiment in a timely manner.
with best regards,
Richard

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OLYMPUS commitment.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 137525 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/olympus/attachments/20090927/ed70617=
5/OLYMPUScommitment.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Manpower_OperatingCosts.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 6842 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/olympus/attachments/20090927/ed70617=
5/Manpower_OperatingCosts.pdf