ePIC pfRICH mailing list

["Page, Brian" <bpage AT bnl.gov>]

Hello All,

After a bit of a break since the release of version 0 of the pre-TDR, it's time to start working again to bring the draft into a final state by the December 1^st deadline. At Monday's TIC meeting (https://indico.bnl.gov/event/25168/), Silvia laid out the timeline for reviews. As the v0 draft was delayed a week, the review deadline has been extended to the 28th, however, the comments that have been submitted already have been made available to the pre-TDR editors so work can begin. I have started looking through the comments and will contact people as needed over the next several days to address specific points. 

Independent of the review, there are several points we know need to be addressed which we should begin working on as well. The major ones are:

1. Complete the "Requirements from Data Rates" section. I believe we have all the information needed for this, so it should just be a matter of analyzing the particle flux maps and writing the text.

2. Update the Monte-Carlo performance section. The pfRICH performance plots currently in the pre-TDR were generated using outdated parameters. While there shouldn't be drastic changes, new performance plots taking into account the most up-to-date vessel dimensions and sensor/aerogel properties need to be created. 

3. Update the physics performance section. As above, the plots of e/pi and pi/k/p performance need to be regenerated using the latest simulation. One issue that will need to be addressed is how this should be done: using the look up tables embedded into the official ePIC simulation (these would be out of date compared to the newest pfRICH simulations) or using some combination of new look up tables or simply our stand-alone simulation.

4. Preparing the supplemental material. We need to update plots and edit text for the supplemental material. I had identified several sections to be included, but more information can always be added. The sections which should be in are: pfRICH performance from simulation, e/h and pi/k/p separation, aerogel and mirror test results, fabrication procedures, and test stand details.

I will contact the relevant section editors regarding the above points soon, but if you see your work listed above, please start thinking about what may need to be done. 

One other topic which we will have to contend with is the archival of our figures. There was a document circulated on how to do this, I will review and discuss it with everyone soon.

Thanks.

Brian