sPHENIX HCal discussion

[Edouard Kistenev <kistenev AT bnl.gov>]

John, what if we will set a task force to consider pros and cons, maybe make 
some simple computations and forget about it. The issue of granularity is a 
touchy one if we purpose the emc detector as “generic one” with measurement 
range extending down to nearly “zero” (how we measure it). Conclusions will 
differ if we raise the threshold to 1 GeV for example. In the last two days 
I’ve heard the number of 20% for non-uniformity of the powder calorimeter 
response. Leave the chances to correct it with detector mapping out for now - 
my feeling is that it is almost irreducible in detector operating in 1.5t 
field.  This nonuniformity is from the saw-shape of the barrel surface and 
BaBAR went to a very large expenditures to avoid it in their EMC - why don’t 
you ask your friends if there were better explanations to those costs then 
just a common sense. 20% non-uniformity and 1cm difference in Molier radius 
are most likely mutually compensating. 

Like you I am unhappy of integrating tails over multiple crossing but we 
never shown that it can't be done (remember 5gHz digitization was not even 
around, when that statement was written) and never shown that it can be done 
(except in ATLAS integrating many(?) more charge carriers). Again - the 
effect can be balanced against the underlying event effect in heavy ion 
collisions. You integrate it out  when centrality is low (if you keep timing 
capability), it is irreducible in the most central events. 

I understand the dangers of this discussion at this stage in the game for 
sPHENIX but for eIC - we both and Craig signed on tunable granularity W/Sc 
shashklik for eIC which will be quite different from powder version of 
sPHENIX and hope that the effort to develop this solution in the next couple 
years will be supported. But it will take couple years. Testing CsJ does not 
need even that scale of the effort. Couple crystals  and couple large APD’s 
or better large SiPM’s and couple of DRS4 units to record both CsJ towers and 
trigger scintillators in the next test beam (or maybe we may ask for a few 
hours of collisions in the PHENIX hall??). Steve/Sergio may agree to help 
with integrating preamps with tunable decay time. Todd still have a box left 
from the test of E864 cut off. Why not to try.
                        Edward



> On Aug 4, 2017, at 1:36 PM, John Haggerty <haggerty AT bnl.gov> wrote:
> 
> The paragraph about why we didn't use the BaBar CsI in spHENIX has migrated 
> over the years from the pCDR to the CDR to the Alternatives Analysis 
> (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0S-7Wbfr7kFYjg2RlB0RHhtRGs), and I 
> think it would take a lot of work to argue that we could live with the 
> segmenatation and timing characteristics of the CsI in heavy ions, but the 
> current thought is that it might work at an EIC.  It also remains to show 
> that it would be feasible, but seems more credible for EIC than sPHENIX.
> 
> This was the paragraph from the alternatives analysis:
> 
>> The BaBar experiment had a CsI electromagnetic calorimeter which is
>> available to a new experiment.  Clearly, it is a good match
>> mechanically to the BaBar solenoid, occupying radial space from about
>> 90~cm to the inner radius of the cryostat, but its segmentation,
>> Moli\`{e}re radius, and time resolution are not well suited to RHIC
>> heavy ion operation.  The Moliere radius of the CsI(Tl) is 3.8~cm
>> compared to about 2.2~cm of the proposed calorimeter, limiting the
>> segmentation possible at the radius that the electromagnetic
>> calorimeter could be deployed, and the segmentation reflects that,
>> with the barrel divided into 48 rings of 120 crystals, compared to the
>> proposed 96 rings of 256 calorimeter elements.  CsI(Tl) is a
>> relatively slow scintillator, with an average decay time of about $1
>> \mu s$, which would effectively integrate over 10 or more RHIC
>> crossings.  Despite the attractiveness of redeploying an elegantly
>> engineered and executed detector, it is not suitable for use at RHIC
>> as part of a barrel calorimeter.
> 
> 
> On 8/4/17 11:07 AM, Edouard Kistenev wrote:
>> My goodness, I am not making proposals anymore, I had so many of those in 
>> my 25 years at BNL (some even successful) that enough should be enough. 
>> All I wanted is to attract attention to the fact (in your last paragraph) 
>> that building detectors with performance on the edge of “satisfying” the 
>> requirements of today provides you with no guaranties for not biting your 
>> elbows tomorrow. If you can build better detector without breaking the 
>> bank - do it. In case of eIC - good example are jets which were nonissue 
>> for eI collisions only 5 years ago and now are at the forefront.
>> As for long decay times - I briefly talked to Chi of a solution proposed 
>> by Haggerty - to use RC to integrate the signal (one problem is to retain 
>> enough frequency range in integration not to design out the   timing 
>> measurements) and use digital analysis of high frequency digitization 
>> stream for CR part of the shaping. Chi pointed whole slew of problems with 
>> this approach (lobut said he will give it a thought. I also crossed with 
>> Sergio - he will be back from vacationing (Italy !!!!!!) second week of 
>> September - ready to talk.
>> Edward
>>> On Aug 4, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Mickey Chiu <chiu AT bnl.gov 
>>> <mailto:chiu AT bnl.gov>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Edward,
>>> 
>>> You might recognize one of the authors, a certain Jason Newby :-)  He’s a 
>>> former PHENIXian.  I remember attending the intermediate neutrino 
>>> workshop which was here at BNL and thinking the coherent neutrino 
>>> measurement was the most interesting proposal coming out of the workshop. 
>>>  Then last year I happened to bump into Jason and talking to him about 
>>> the prospects, which were scientifically very good at the time.  He 
>>> mentioned how difficult it was to get ORNL management to understand the 
>>> value of the science, something which I could very well understand.  So 
>>> it’s good to see such great science successfully coming out despite all 
>>> the difficulties.
>>> 
>>> I think one of the problems with your proposal is that you get a huge 
>>> background from all the other stuff in the collision.  You’ll need to do 
>>> this when there aren’t collisions, and with a strong source of low energy 
>>> neutrinos.  At the very least.  I imagine you need also a very low noise 
>>> readout, perhaps state of the art.
>>> 
>>> BTW, I mentioned to JH a while back that for ePHENIX we ought to install 
>>> the Babar CsI(Tl) calorimeter as a nearly ideal barrel calorimeter for 
>>> the EIC that fits within the e/sPHENIX base.  The CsI crystals as you 
>>> know have a slow decay so they would take a large effort to correct for 
>>> the inevitable baseline shifts into tailing crossings, but the EIC rates 
>>> are so low that it should not be a concern.  The resolution (sigmaE/E) is 
>>>  2.3% \oplus 1.4%.  There’s a proposed requirement by Alex Kiselev that 
>>> you need 5% energy resolution at the EIC, so this would satisfy it.  I 
>>> note that people in PHENIX have done studies that show that 12% 
>>> resolution would be good enough, and I haven’t myself verified either of 
>>> these numbers.  However, it’s clear that better energy resolution should 
>>> always be better, up to the lower limit that radiative effects on the 
>>> primary recoil electron impose.  Anyway, JH says that he talked to the 
>>> SLAC responsible person for the Babar calorimeter and the crystals are 
>>> available for ePHENIX if desired.
>>> 
>>> Mickey
>>> -- 
>>> Building 510C
>>> Department of Physics
>>> Brookhaven National Laboratory
>>> Upton, NY 11973
>>> Phone: 631-344-8428
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 4, 2017, at 9:18 AM, Edward Kistenev <kistenev AT bnl.gov 
>>>> <mailto:kistenev AT bnl.gov>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Xiaochun, thanks for paying attention. I know Yuri Efremenko who 
>>>> found that hole under reactor but I always thought it is about 
>>>> neutrinoless double beta decays, this one is very interesting too even 
>>>> if neutrinos are effectively color neutral in coherent interactions. And 
>>>> it will be very difficult to prove that whatever flashes we’ll see in 
>>>> CsJ are not from neutrons which are plenty at RHIC too (except for the 
>>>> fact that all delayed - with respect to the bunch - flashes are from 
>>>> neutrons and any excess correlated with bunch crossing could be related 
>>>> to production of those same neutrons).
>>>> Edward
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 4, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Xiaochun He <xhe AT gsu.edu 
>>>> <mailto:xhe AT gsu.edu>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Edward,
>>>> 
>>>> One of the authors of this project, from ORNL, is visiting GSU on the 
>>>> coming Monday and Tuesday. I could ask him more details if there is any 
>>>> details that you would like to know.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Xiaochun
>>>> --
>>>> 
>>>> Xiaochun He
>>>> Distinguished University Professor
>>>> and Physics Graduate Director
>>>> Department of Physics & Astronomy
>>>> Georgia State University
>>>> Atlanta, GA 30303
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *From:*sPHENIX-HCal-l <sphenix-hcal-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov 
>>>> <mailto:sphenix-hcal-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov>> on behalf of Edward 
>>>> Kistenev <kistenev AT bnl.gov <mailto:kistenev AT bnl.gov>>
>>>> *Sent:*Friday, August 4, 2017 8:14:49 AM
>>>> *To:*sphenix-hcal-l AT lists.bnl.gov 
>>>> <mailto:sphenix-hcal-l AT lists.bnl.gov>;sphenix-emcal-l AT lists.bnl.gov 
>>>> <mailto:sphenix-emcal-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>>>> *Subject:*[Sphenix-hcal-l] Ever-Elusive Neutrinos Spotted Bouncing Off 
>>>> Nuclei for the First Time - Scientific American
>>>> Here is what we can do with BaBar CsJ if we’ll find a way to install it 
>>>> and make it run in sPHENIX
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ever-elusive-neutrinos-spotted-bouncing-off-nuclei-for-the-first-time/
>>>>>  
>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com%2Farticle%2Fever-elusive-neutrinos-spotted-bouncing-off-nuclei-for-the-first-time%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cxhe%40gsu.edu%7Cf9e319597a4a41c580d708d4db3279f3%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636374457231779086&sdata=l8VYmPYJJOHvcThBM4xtcZDcgc7hRjMGGM6Xgpfx0wA%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Ever-Elusive Neutrinos Spotted Bouncing Off Nuclei for the First Time
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>    A new technology for detecting neutrinos represents a
>>>>>    “monumental” advance for science
>>>>> 
>>>>> Juan Collar, a professor in physics at the University of Chicago, with 
>>>>> a prototype of the world’s smallest neutrino detector used to observe 
>>>>> for the first time an elusive interaction known as coherent elastic 
>>>>> neutrino nucleus scattering./Credit: Jean Lachat / University of 
>>>>> Chicago/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Neutrinos are famously antisocial. Of all the characters in the 
>>>>> particle physics cast 
>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com%2Farticle%2Fpreons-the-particle-landscape%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cxhe%40gsu.edu%7Cf9e319597a4a41c580d708d4db3279f3%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636374457231779086&sdata=mLlCFYxQbCG3TOL2vLyti0CVsuRMrKA9uDcs6kXtdX4%3D&reserved=0>,
>>>>>  they are the most reluctant to interact with other particles. Among 
>>>>> the hundred trillion neutrinos that pass through you every second, only 
>>>>> about one per week actually grazes a particle in your body.
>>>>> That rarity has made life miserable for physicists, who resort to 
>>>>> building huge underground detector tanks for a chance at catching the 
>>>>> odd neutrino. But in astudy 
>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fscience.sciencemag.org%2Fcontent%2Fearly%2F2017%2F08%2F02%2Fscience.aao0990&data=02%7C01%7Cxhe%40gsu.edu%7Cf9e319597a4a41c580d708d4db3279f3%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636374457231779086&sdata=f0gOG3LZd%2Fb7OYJo5UdGEDD%2BcvK4CM%2BVWQtzS4TwDMk%3D&reserved=0>published
>>>>>  today in/Science/, researchers working at Oak Ridge National 
>>>>> Laboratory (ORNL) detected never-before-seen neutrino interactions 
>>>>> using a detector the size of a fire extinguisher. Their feat paves the 
>>>>> way for new supernova research, dark matter searches and even nuclear 
>>>>> nonproliferation monitoring.
>>>>> Under previous approaches, a neutrino reveals itself by stumbling 
>>>>> across a proton or neutron amidst the vast emptiness surrounding atomic 
>>>>> nuclei, producing a flash of light or a single-atom chemical change. 
>>>>> But neutrinos deign to communicate with other particles only via the 
>>>>> “weak” force—the fundamental force that causes radioactive materials to 
>>>>> decay. Because the weak force operates only at subatomic distances, the 
>>>>> odds of a tiny neutrino bouncing off of an individual neutron or proton 
>>>>> are miniscule. Physicists must compensate by offering thousands of tons 
>>>>> of atoms for passing neutrinos to strike.
>>>>> The new experimental collaboration, known asCOHERENT 
>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsites.duke.edu%2Fcoherent%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cxhe%40gsu.edu%7Cf9e319597a4a41c580d708d4db3279f3%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636374457231779086&sdata=vjVl6iaRul2a8QAb9nEis97kU8RhfvqpQ75f0SDrKSE%3D&reserved=0>,
>>>>>  instead looks for a phenomenon called CEvNS (pronounced “sevens”), or 
>>>>> coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering. CEvNS relies on the 
>>>>> quantum mechanical equivalence between particles and waves, comparable 
>>>>> to ocean waves. The high-energy neutrinos sought by most experiments 
>>>>> are like short, choppy ocean waves. When such narrow waves pass under 
>>>>> floating debris, they can pick out one leaf or twig at a time to toss 
>>>>> around. Similarly, a high-energy neutrino typically picks out 
>>>>> individual protons and neutrons with which to interact. But just as a 
>>>>> long, slow wave would pick up the whole patch of debris at once, a 
>>>>> low-energy neutrino sees the entire atomic nucleus as one “coherent” 
>>>>> whole. This dramatically improves the odds of an interaction. As the 
>>>>> number of neutrons in the nucleus is increased, the effective target 
>>>>> size for the neutrino to hit grows in lockstep not just with that 
>>>>> number, but with its square.
>>>>> Of course, once a neutrino and a nucleus collide, the collision must 
>>>>> still be detected. The neutrino bounces off and continues its 
>>>>> inscrutable wandering but the nucleus also recoils slightly from the 
>>>>> impact. That jolt kicks a few electrons out of their orbits around the 
>>>>> nucleus and its neighbors. As the electrons fall back into place, they 
>>>>> release their acquired energy as photons. Each burst of photons is the 
>>>>> calling card of a neutrino.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Down Neutrino Alley
>>>>> 
>>>>> Although they are orders of magnitude more common than other neutrino 
>>>>> collisions, CEvNS interactions pose formidable challenges to 
>>>>> detection—so much so that no study has observed them since the 
>>>>> mechanism was first theorized 43 years ago. COHERENT owes its success 
>>>>> to its choices of neutrino source and target material—plus an 
>>>>> unexpected assist from a cramped basement hallway.
>>>>> The first problem facing COHERENT was the sheer tininess of a nuclear 
>>>>> recoil. “Imagine that you take a ping-pong ball and you throw it at a 
>>>>> bowling ball,” says Temple University physics professorJim Napolitano 
>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https:%2F%2Fphys.cst.temple.edu%2F~napolj%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cxhe%40gsu.edu%7Cf9e319597a4a41c580d708d4db3279f3%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636374457231779086&sdata=cF3xK6YPeH7RWdHDk7NXCoVKohHLngBGQnmb7J3u030%3D&reserved=0>,
>>>>>  who was not involved in the study. “We know from conservation of 
>>>>> momentum [that] a little bit of energy is imparted to the bowling ball. 
>>>>> This [experiment] is detecting that bowling ball’s energy”—a signal on 
>>>>> the order of 10 photons.
>>>>> The challenge for COHERENT, then, was to find a material with atomic 
>>>>> nuclei large enough for neutrinos to hit easily, but also small enough 
>>>>> that they would noticeably recoil on impact. In addition, the material 
>>>>> had to be transparent so the photons could reach the detectors. “That 
>>>>> took me a lot of thinking—maybe 15 years,” saysJuan Collar 
>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcollargroup.uchicago.edu%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cxhe%40gsu.edu%7Cf9e319597a4a41c580d708d4db3279f3%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636374457231779086&sdata=8VJdut%2BsBzO83ugUNyLy%2F%2B%2B1zVvNHblEin4GnUaNssg%3D&reserved=0>,
>>>>>  a professor of physics at the University of Chicago and one of the 
>>>>> study’s lead authors.
>>>>> The second constraint was the neutrinos themselves. In theory, a recoil 
>>>>> from a fast-moving neutrino would be larger, and therefore easier to 
>>>>> spot—but if the neutrinos were too speedy, they would have too much 
>>>>> energy to interact coherently. Eventually Collar and his colleagues 
>>>>> realized that sodium-doped cesium iodine, a transparent crystalline 
>>>>> material, would be an ideal target for the neutrinos that are produced 
>>>>> as a by-product by the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), a 
>>>>> neutron-producing particle collider at ORNL.
>>>>> <akimov1HR.jpg>SNS’s Beamline 13, which carries neutrons from the SNS 
>>>>> collider to experimental stations. The same process that produces the 
>>>>> neutrons also spits out neutrinos, which enter the COHERENT detector in 
>>>>> the SNS basement. Credit: Jean Lachat/University of Chicago/
>>>>> 
>>>>> But using the SNS as a neutrino source added a third complication. 
>>>>> Neutrons can be convincing mimics of neutrinos: They have no charge, so 
>>>>> they do not show up on electromagnetic detectors, and they can strike a 
>>>>> nucleus with the same effects as a neutrino. When the COHERENT team 
>>>>> first tested the SNS grounds, says co-author David Reyna of Sandia 
>>>>> National Laboratories, they found neutrons streaming out of the SNS’s 
>>>>> neutron generation site, as expected—but also pouring through the 
>>>>> shielding of neighboring experimental halls. The detector noise from 
>>>>> neutrons was so bad that the researchers feared they might not be able 
>>>>> to use the facility at all.
>>>>> Fortunately, ORNL professor of particle physicsYuri Efremenko 
>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phys.utk.edu%2Ffaculty%2Ffaculty-efremenko.html&data=02%7C01%7Cxhe%40gsu.edu%7Cf9e319597a4a41c580d708d4db3279f3%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636374457231779086&sdata=IyfiUmo6zNxKdj7SufH5fJ%2Bg0elGgdY0iXiMtnsG8kE%3D&reserved=0>made
>>>>>  a lucky discovery: a basement hallway beneath the SNS collider. 
>>>>> Despite being close to the neutron source, it happened to be shielded 
>>>>> by the densely compacted earth supporting the collider’s many tons of 
>>>>> concrete. After negotiations with ORNL’s safety team, the COHERENT team 
>>>>> removed the empty drums that had been stored in the hallway and set up 
>>>>> shop in their new “neutrino alley.”
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>    A Future Full of Neutrinos
>>>>> 
>>>>> Experts have only glowing words for the COHERENT result. Massachusetts 
>>>>> Institute of Technology physics professorJanet Conrad 
>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.mit.edu%2Fphysics%2Fpeople%2Ffaculty%2Fconrad_janet.html&data=02%7C01%7Cxhe%40gsu.edu%7Cf9e319597a4a41c580d708d4db3279f3%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636374457231779086&sdata=5T3Ri6PPrDQ3o3Mf%2B7g8KdXyo4Y4rfRN23eSYNRpYsY%3D&reserved=0>says
>>>>>  she is “really, really pleased.” Napolitano calls the paper 
>>>>> “monumental” and “a huge accomplishment.” And no outside expert who 
>>>>> spoke with/Scientific American/expressed any technical quibbles with 
>>>>> the paper. With such a convincing demonstration of the CEvNS 
>>>>> phenomenon, scientists can now turn from finding it to using it.
>>>>> The biggest implication is having what Collar calls a “handheld 
>>>>> neutrino detector.” The compact size will be a huge boon to neutrino 
>>>>> researchers; Conrad notes that one of her previous experiments had 
>>>>> “mini” in its name despite being 40 feet tall. (Larger detectors will 
>>>>> still be useful for studying neutrino properties that cannot be 
>>>>> measured with CEvNS.) Small detectors could also eventually assist the 
>>>>> International Atomic Energy Agency inmonitoring nuclear reactors 
>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com%2Farticle%2Fdetection-of-ghostly-particles-could-unmask-illicit-nuclear-weapons%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cxhe%40gsu.edu%7Cf9e319597a4a41c580d708d4db3279f3%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636374457231779086&sdata=0H7nrwTaK4RXVIFXmmx7YeibWK5ftFui%2Buc00SwZCmk%3D&reserved=0>for
>>>>>  clandestine production of fuel for atomic weapons, Reyna says. The 
>>>>> neutrinos pumped out by reactor cores cannot be shielded or hidden, so 
>>>>> if CEvNS detectors can be adapted to spot these lower-energy neutrinos, 
>>>>> inspectors could check remotely whether a reactor’s activities match 
>>>>> its operators’ claims.
>>>>> The CEvNS phenomenon itself also opens up new scientific frontiers. 
>>>>> Collar and his colleagues are already working to test whether the rates 
>>>>> of neutrino detection in different materials match theoretical 
>>>>> predictions. Those same theories govern what happens in supernovae, 
>>>>> which release 99 percent of their energy as neutrinos. That means 
>>>>> further CEvNS experiments, in addition to detecting supernovae, could 
>>>>> confirm or refute models of these colossal stellar explosions. And dark 
>>>>> matter researchers are breathing a sigh of relief, because a close 
>>>>> cousin of CEvNS could bolster ongoing searches for a hypothesized form 
>>>>> of dark matter called weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). 
>>>>> COHERENT’s discovery bolsters the viability of the WIMP theory, says 
>>>>> Collar, and points the way to future detection technologies.
>>>>> All these potential advances give physicists plenty to be excited 
>>>>> about, says University of Michigan physicistJosh Spitz 
>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flsa.umich.edu%2Fphysics%2Fpeople%2Ffaculty%2Fspitzj.html&data=02%7C01%7Cxhe%40gsu.edu%7Cf9e319597a4a41c580d708d4db3279f3%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636374457231779086&sdata=CwXFcaY5DauvnjVxbv2aUZZq1LMgBOckL96sg%2FmtXfs%3D&reserved=0>.
>>>>>  “This [study] is just the tip of the iceberg. There’s a whole lot more 
>>>>> interesting stuff to come.”
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sPHENIX-HCal-l mailing list
>>>> sPHENIX-HCal-l AT lists.bnl.gov <mailto:sPHENIX-HCal-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-hcal-l
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> sPHENIX-HCal-l mailing list
>> sPHENIX-HCal-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-hcal-l
> 
> 
> -- 
> John Haggerty
> email: haggerty AT bnl.gov
> cell: 631 741 3358
> _______________________________________________
> sPHENIX-HCal-l mailing list
> sPHENIX-HCal-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-hcal-l