Re: Final Draft for Review

From: stefanski@fnal.gov
Date: Thu Jun 30 2005 - 11:01:25 CDT


As luck would have it, I was in Warsaw during this exercise and could not contribute. The Final Draft is a remarkable accomplishment in itself - congratulations to all of you!!

I have a very general concern about the answer to question #9. It's ok the way it is, but you may want to consider a change in emphasis. Seven issues are identified; each followed by general discussion of how the issue might be resolved. This approach is a little vague. There isn't sufficient information given to provide convincing arguments, which could give the reviewers a misleading impression.

The opening sentence: "Cross-calibration is intended to be a bottom line test ....." isn't the goal that some of us imagined. I thought we were "cross-calibrating" to establish the relative target size (number of target nuclei) in each detector compared to one standard detector that remains at the near location for the entire run. Most calibration issues mentioned in the answer to Q9 do not affect this relative measure of target size. You may wish to consider replacing the first paragraph with a few sentences that express this goal. I seem to remember that Jon Link did a MC calculation that provided considerable proof that these calibration issues don't affect the relative target size measurement. This could be added to the document. The remaining discussion of calibration issues might be given in light of the lack of sensitivity in the relative target size measurement. This approach is more definite and clear. It gives the reviewers a solid concept to take back to DOE and P
5.

Well as I say, itĘs ok as is. This suggestion is just a thought that might make the job easier for the reviewers. Thanks for listening,

Ray Stefanski
Fermilab, MS122
P.O. Box 500
Batavia, Il 60510
Phone: 630.8403872

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Shaevitz <shaevitz@nevis.columbia.edu>
Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 8:15 pm
Subject: Final Draft for Review

> Dear Braidwooders,
>
> The final draft of our response to the NuSAG questions is given in
> the
> links below.
>
> http://braidwood.uchicago.edu/private/text/BWanswersV2.ps
> http://braidwood.uchicago.edu/private/text/BWanswersV2.pdf
> http://braidwood.uchicago.edu/private/text/BWanswersV2.tex
>
> After some thoughts and discussion, it was decided that having an
> introductory paragraph that talked about the further studies
> needed
> for progress on some of the questions would only detract from our
> answers. It was also felt that making a plea for funding in this
> document was not appropriate.
>
> Please let me know tomorrow morning if you have any further
> comments.
> I plan to submit the document to NuSAG tomorrow afternoon.
>
> Thanks to everyone for all of your work and help,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sun Jul 03 2005 - 03:10:17 CDT