[Olympus] Draft agenda for OLYMPUS collaboration meeting

Tue Feb 25 09:31:07 EST 2014

Hi Stan,

If we would have more man power, you would be absolutely right, maybe
with the caveat of bias. But we don't, and I think that it takes away
time from the basic tasks. For a year of analysis, the number of green
marks is not really high.

Why invest time in a study of charge asymmetries, when the MC is not
fully tested and understood? When the efficiency maps are not verified?
When the basic cluster finding code on the GEMs will likely change? It's
not so much the time writing the needed tools to study beam asymmetries
- this can then later be reused and run again with the rest updated.
But we will spend time analyzing the results, chasing ghosts. And then,
we might come to the wrong conclusions.

For the Symmetric Moeller, the beam position is crucial. It's likely
that we a good calibration for that soon. But I'd like to see that the
simulation replicates the behavior of our beam scan, in scale and
position, before it's worthwhile to look at runs over time.

Ozgur is gone in a few days. If we want an independent check of the
stuff Brian did on the GEMs and MWPC efficiencies, this must happen at
DESY.

Best,
Jan

On 2/25/14, 6:44 AM, Belostotski, Stanislav wrote:
> Hi, Jan,
> I am afraid as wrongly understood.
> Yes ,we are far from  sort of final conclusions.
> Yet the lumi study must finally have a goal.
>   If one may say anything about possible beam charge asymmetries,
> even at the level of estimations right now, what would be harm from that?
> That is a critical issue for the whole experiments.
> Or you think this is still premature?
> With best regards StanB
> 
> On 25.02.2014 12:07, Jan C. Bernauer wrote:
>> Dear Stan,
>>
>> >From what I learned from Juergens nice presentation, I can only warn
>> against this. We need to learn to walk before we can run, and frankly,
>> in some sense we haven't even discovered that we have feet yet.
>>
>> We often discuss high level plots in the past - but then we discover
>> that there are so many caveats how they are produced that we can not
>> extract anything from it.
>>
>> I can only recommend that we go through the list of basics and work on
>> them point-by-point. The MWPC is arguably in better shape there, but
>> there also 12-deg-system wide things to do first. For example, it would
>> be great if finally could get a matching set of efficiencies, with the
>> same numbers, by two different people. And offsets, resolutions, etc.
>>
>> One additional point: We already hat the unfortunate incident that the
>> first look on lumi data provided great results, which then later turned
>> out to be accidental. This put us in a bad situation with the PRC,
>> something I wouldn't like to repeat.
>> It's also very easy to bias oneself looking at such plots.
>>
>> Best,
>> Jan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/25/14, 4:59 AM, Belostotski, Stanislav wrote:
>>> Dear Douglas,
>>> I would like to comment on Wednesday Luminosity meeting.
>>
>>> First, it must be some time slot for lunch indicated in the agenda.
>>> In the luminosity discussion section, I find that lumi studies are
>>> already now developed enough for  focusing on  two most important for
>>> the final analysis  items:
>>> 1. Obtaining a coherent result on luminosity using both SYMB and 12 deg
>>> monitor;
>>> 2.Possible sources of  false beam charge asymmetry affecting the
>>> luminosity monitoring.
>>> With best regards
>>>
>>> On 24.02.2014 17:56, Douglas Kenneth Hasell wrote:
>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> 	Attached is the draft agenda for the OLYMPUS collaboration meeting.
>>>>
>>>> 	The meeting will be held in the afternoon Monday and Tuesday, March 10-11, 2014 so people in the USA can easily participate.
>>>>
>>>> 	If you have a title or description for the topic please send it to me so I can update the agenda.
>>>>
>>>> 	Jürgen will give a talk on OLYMPUS at the DPG meeting the week after the collaboration meeting so please prepare high-quality slides reflecting the most recent results so he can incorporate them into his presentation.
>>>>
>>>> 	The proposal for the Wednesday, March 12, workshop on luminosity is to have a coordinator (Michael or Jürgen) summarise our current status, list the areas requiring work, and then lead the discussion on the work to be done, who will do it, etc.
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>                                                       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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>>>> Name: Agenda.pdf
>>>> Type: application/pdf
>>>> Size: 70014 bytes
>>>> Desc: not available
>>>> Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/olympus/attachments/20140224/f60b11df/attachment.pdf
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Olympus mailing list
>>>> Olympus at mit.edu
>>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Olympus mailing list
>>> Olympus at mit.edu
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Olympus mailing list
>> Olympus at mit.edu
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Olympus mailing list
> Olympus at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> 

-- 
Dr. Jan C. Bernauer
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Ave, Room 26-441
Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA
Phone:  (617) 253-6580