sPHENIX cold QCD topical group

[Mickey Chiu <chiu AT bnl.gov>]

Hi Dave,

I think if you really are aiming to get as many people interested in working with the Babar magnet as a base for the EIC detector, then your slide 14 should include more elucidation of different possibilities.  In particular from my personal perspective, for the barrel PID I would replace “DIRC” with “DIRC/psTOF” :-)  It’s funny IMHO to not promote things on an equal basis, especially when I would say the psTOF is more of a BNL project and is closer to realization from a technical perspective than the DIRC.  I know this well because I work very closely within the EIC PID R&D consortium.  I would also say it would probably be good to point out the mRICH (the modules behind the forward RICH), which our good longtime (s)PHENIX colleagues at Ga State and others are developing.  Of course it’s your talk and you can promote what you want, but at this early stage I don’t think you should rule out any viable possibilities, especially since your stated goal is to be as inclusive as possible.  Other things you could mention on that page as viable options that people have proposed and been funded for within the EIC Detector R&D program are micro-megas or GEMs for the barrel tracking, and various options for the forward PID (dual radiator RICH vs RICH+mRICH+psTOF, for instance).

I wonder also about the change in presentation from what has been stated in the past as Nils has mentioned.  It looks like you are now promoting a barebones “sPHENIX” consisting of just the solenoid and outer HCAL/flux return.   I believe upper lab management has been promoting sPHENIX/ePHENIX as a cost-effective day-1 detector in order to bolster the case for eRHIC vs the EIC at JLAB.  It sounds like you are possibly under-cutting that message, though maybe you have already discussed this with upper lab management and have more insight on this than I do.  BTW, I think everyone generally agrees a barrel HCAL is NOT required at the EIC, as the max electron energy is around 20 GeV, so jets can be no more than ~20 GeV in the barrel.  So this isn’t much of a selling point.

This workshop seems kind of funny to me since it overlaps almost entirely with what is being discussed within the EIC Detector R&D program.  If there’s one thing that I hope comes out of this, that would be a broad commitment from the user community to emphasize to the DOE that there be funding in place to have two detectors on day-1 at the EIC.  It’s unfortunate to me that I sometimes hear about having only one detector, which would be bad from a science perspective and a sociological perspective, as you can imagine when you have no choice in who your collaborators are.  I wonder if this is because the DOE has placed funding constraints for the experiments at the EIC, so this is the usual problem with the DOE under-funding the experiments relative to the collider (IMHO).  I’m not sure but I think your talk skews a bit towards promoting having only one detector on day 1, which I think would be a mistake, as I have said.  I think there is also benefit to having workshops where people can schmooze since this is just part of the process of forming a community.  In the end I think the winning lab will set forth the boundary conditions so it’s unclear anything is decided at the workshop, but maybe they will listen to the user community, such as (IMHO) the great desire to have more than one detector on day one at the EIC.

Just my 2 cents… 

Mickey

-- 
Building 510C
Department of Physics
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, NY 11973
Phone: 631-344-8428

On Nov 28, 2017, at 11:00 AM, Nils Feege <nils.feege AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:

Hi Dave and all,

I agree it is important at this point to be open and inviting to other people to join efforts to design an EIC detector using the BaBar magnet. However, the statements we were making in the past about sPHENIX' overall viability as an EIC detector seemed much stronger. To quote a few lines section 2.6 from our recent Forward sPHENIX LOI:

"The sPHENIX detector and the forward upgrade presented in this document are designed to form a suitable basis for an experiment at a future Electron Ion Collider."

"An EIC detector based on sPHENIX has excellent performance for a broad range of EIC physics measurements."

"An EIC detector based on sPHENIX is well suited to address much of the physics enabled at eRHIC."

In that section of the LOI, we talk about using all of sPHENIX + forward instrumentation (including tracking and calorimetry) for EIC. I think it should still be part of your message / conclusion slide that sPHENIX with all its calorimeters would in principle work as a first EIC detector if all we change is adding the PID and electron-side calorimeter. Unless, of course, we believe for some reason that that's not true anymore.

There is clearly room for improvement in this design and the limitations (and solutions to those limitations) need further study. So yes, there is still lots of opportunity for people to change the detector design and make a strong impact, and it's good to stress that as well.

Best,

Nils

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:38 AM, David Morrison <morrison AT bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi John,

Right, that's my thinking.  I think we come out of this in a stronger
position if the EIC community understands sPHENIX as a potential
precursor – and perhaps the most realistic precursor - to an excellent
EIC detector.  There will naturally be debates as we go forward about
what sPHENIX elements might be reused or rebuilt or replaced for the
purpose of an EIC detector.  My response would be that even at the very
extreme end of that spectrum of views, that none of the sPHENIX
detectors are suitable for an EIC detector – a view I don't share, btw –
the community should very seriously consider the sPHENIX solenoid and
flux return as a foundation.  Design around that and you're already
several steps ahead.

At the same time, I do want the audience to know that we didn't sit on
our hands following the writing of the 2014 LoI.  For that, I could use
some help adding detail to slide 16.  A list of specific studies that
have been done since then would convey to people the seriousness of the
effort that has continued to go toward an EIC detector built on sPHENIX.
 I wouldn't have time to describe those studies, but rattling them off
would show that the effort is vibrant and current.  I'd also like to
annotate the various detector cutaways to show how EIC detector R&D is
playing a role.

Cheers,
Dave

On 11/28/17 9:25 AM, John Lajoie wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
>     I very much like your approach and especially your statement in the
> conclusions -  the solenoid and flux return (HCAL) are a great
> foundation.  The traditional argument against the "ePHENIX" approach has
> been to focus on a particular aspect of detector performance and use
> that to declare the approach unsatisfactory, and this undercuts that
> argument very effectively.  I'm sure what you will say on slide 10
> (something like "...this is one possible implementation..." ) will be
> consistent with your approach.
>
> John
>
>
> On 11/27/2017 4:06 PM, David Morrison wrote:
>> Dear sPHENIX,
>>
>> I'll be giving a 10 minute (!) talk this Thursday at the EICUG Detector
>> Discussion Meeting at Temple University.  I'll be the last in a series
>> of talks about detector concepts, and the talk is so brief, that I'm
>> planning to focus on one main point – that starting with the BaBar
>> solenoid in the sPHENIX support structure and with the oHCal as an
>> instrumented flux return is a a great starting point for an EIC
>> detector.  Of course, you can do even better by also using the TPC and
>> the MVTX and the EMCal, but I think presenting a nearly "blank canvas"
>> as part of the spectrum of options has the potential to be maximally
>> inviting.
>>
>> My draft slides are here:
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2ib26f7iwz6h68/EICUG.pptx?dl=0
>>
>> Nils and Jin helped me get some up to date dimensions for the current
>> EIC concept detector to Dan Cacace, who has made some nice 3D
>> renderings.  I'm very happy to get feedback.  The big constraint is the
>> alloted time, so for anything significant that goes in, something will
>> have to come out.
>>
>> I need to add names and institutions to some of the slides and finish
>> adding labels to some of the renderings.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Dave
>>
>
>

> *John Lajoie*
>
> Professor of Physics
>
> Iowa State University
>
>  
>
> (515) 294-6952
>
> lajoie AT iastate.edu
>
> Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/john.lajoie.5> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-lajoie/9/a9/bba/>
> Contact me: Skype john.lajoie
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
>       Virus-free. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sPHENIX-cold-QCD-l mailing list
> sPHENIX-cold-QCD-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-cold-qcd-l
>

--
David Morrison  Brookhaven National Laboratory  phone: 631-344-5840
                Physics Department, Bldg 510 C    fax: 631-344-3253
                          Upton, NY 11973-5000  email: dave AT bnl.gov

_______________________________________________
sPHENIX-cold-QCD-l mailing list
sPHENIX-cold-QCD-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-cold-qcd-l

--

Dr. Nils Feege

Research Assistant Professor

SUNY at Stony Brook

Department of Physics & Astronomy

Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800

e-mail nils.feege AT stonybrook.edu

skype nils1920

phone +1-631-632-8710

www.linkedin.com/in/nilsfeege

_______________________________________________
sPHENIX-cold-QCD-l mailing list
sPHENIX-cold-QCD-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-cold-qcd-l