Re: Baseline Optimization Memo

From: Mike Shaevitz <>
Date: Wed May 19 2004 - 18:15:56 CDT

Hi Jon,

I was looking through your memo and think that it is a nice way to look at

To me, there are a few ground rules 1) we want to have an experiment that is
at or better than 0.01 at 90% CL in sin2(2th13) reach. 2) we want to use
shape and rate in combination to make the experiment more robust in reaching
the th13 goal. 3) our far detector should be somewhere between 100 and 500

With these ground rules, I would assume a systematic error of 0.43% which is
between the limits we have been talking about. From your Table 1, this
would give a syst. error of 230% for a 100 ton detector and 510% for a 500
ton detector. So, I would request that you make versions of Fig. 3 for
these two cases and then we take some kind of compromise between them. This
would average over a realistic but aggressive systematic error and allow us
to take into account scenarios with100 tons and with 500 tons.

I am also optimistic that we will be able to extract important information
from the shape analysis which I think we need to push to the forefront. So,
I would like to have a baseline baseline that uses the combination of shape
and counting and also gets to the 0.01 sin2(2th13) level.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Link" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 1:22 PM
Subject: Baseline Optimization Memo

Hi All,

Now that we have the go ahead from Exelon, we are hoping to move rather
quickly on getting the bore holes dug at Braidwood. The optimal
location of the near shaft is well understood, but I believe that we
should revisit the question of what is the optimal location for the far
shaft before the bore holes are dug. Our objective is to choose the
best location given our current knowledge of delta m^2 and the
measurement philosophy, and the odds of what we select now being right
are not great, but we should try anyway. Since a bore hole at the exact
location of the shafts will be critical to reducing the project
contingency, the cost of getting it wrong now will be $50K to $80K to
drill prior to bidding the civil construction.

I have written a memo describing a recent baseline study I conducted,
and discussing the risks associated with uncertainties like delta m^2.
 We would like to initiate the bidding process by May 24th, so the
internal discussion should be complete by then. Please take sometime to
look at the memo and enter the debate.


Jon Link
Received on Wed May 19 18:16:11 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 03 2004 - 03:28:11 CDT