Re: Sensitivity for the Baseline

Hi All,

Steve pointed out to me that his scenario is actually the equivalent 8
years with two 65 ton far detectors (2 years at 130 tons and 3 at 260).
 After discussing it we decided to just go for 10 years at 130 tons or
equivalently 2 years at 130 and 4 years at 260. I think that the point
is that we need to stress both our flexibility, by virtue of movable
detectors, and our salability, by virtue of modular detectors. The
results of this study are as follows

10 years, 0.6% relative normalization error: (sense_0.6_10yr.ps)
                         Delta m^2 (eV^2)
                0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 0.0030
----------------------------------------------
Counting Only 0.0162 0.0115 0.0099 0.0097
Shape Only 0.0095 0.0081 0.0073 0.0056
Counting+Shape 0.0078 0.0062 0.0056 0.0047
 
10 years, 8% movable detectors: (sense_md_10yr.ps)
                         Delta m^2 (eV^2)
                0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 0.0030
----------------------------------------------
Counting Only 0.0083 0.0059 0.0050 0.0049
Shape Only 0.0098 0.0083 0.0076 0.0058
Counting+Shape 0.0050 0.0037 0.0032 0.0031
This level of measure relative normalization error (0.14%) might not be
credible.

It is interesting to note that this scenario is 9360 Gw ton years, which
is 17% larger than the Huber reactor II scenario. In other words a 6
year program (or less) gets us through the prototypical large scale
reactor experiment with $2.7 million more in civil and one extra
detector over the current baseline.

-Jon

Steven Biller wrote:

> Ok, here's an interesting scenario:
>We run in the default configuration for
>2 years, at which point (according to John's
>numbers) rate and spectrum measurements
>will be comparable and we'll start running
>into the wall as far as what can be done
>with pure rate. Hopefully, we'll also have
>obtained enough data for thetaW. What if we
>don't see anything much? ==> Pull back ALL
>4 detectors to the far location and crank
>away for another 3 years. I fully appreciate
>that there are systematics with spectrum that
>would really need to be looked at but, in
>principle, how well could we do?? I'd imagine
>much better than anyone else... this may be
>a VERY attractive option to flog since, in
>the absence of a detection, we'd be the only
>show in town! The practical consequences of
>this for the shorter term are that, perhaps,
>we should plan 4 rooms at the far site as
>part of the baseline. Jon - it'd be fun to
>see those 'in-principle' numbers for the
>equivalent of 16 detector module-years at
>the far site... is that easy to knock off?
>
> - Steve
>
>
>