Sphenix-calibration-l mailing list

[Spencer Klein <srklein AT lbl.gov>]

Hi Takao, all:

I would suspect that running pp the first year will not be politically 
viable.  But, it is fine to ask, and the draft email is fine.

There is one typo 'descent' -> 'decent'

Spencer

On 8/13/20 09:53, Takao Sakaguchi via sPHENIX-calibration-l wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>  Following the discussion at the calibration TF executive meeting
> last Tuesday, I made a draft to provide our view to the BUR TF.
>
>  Please give your feedback. We should probably send it to the
> BUR taskforce first in the morning tomorrow.
>
> Takao
> ------------------------
>
>  We, calibration TF, appreciate that the BUR TF are working hard
> for finalizing a beam use proposal for the PAC meeting in Sep.
> Here we would like to provide you with our view on the run plan.
>
>  From the calibration point of view, it is essential to have descent
> p+p dataset prior to performing precision physics in A+A collisions
> which we are aiming for in sPHENIX. The p+p dataset provides
> handles on energy scale and resolution of calorimeters that are
> essential for jet-photon correlation measurement, tracking resolution
> and TPC distortion correction for Upsilon spectroscopy, and etc.
>
>  Accordingly, we think we won't be able to publish results from the
> A+A data taken before the high statistics p+p data are obtained.
> We note that the quality assurance of the A+A data may not be
> performed well enough either. The peripheral A+A collisions may be
> useful, but the statistics will be too low to perform good enough
> calibration for rare probes such as jet-photon correlation.
>
>  We appreciate that you take our view into account for finalizing
> the run plan to be proposed to the PAC.
>
> _______________________________________________
> sPHENIX-calibration-l mailing list
> sPHENIX-calibration-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-calibration-l