sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: sPHENIX is a new detector at RHIC.
List archive
Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion
- From: Gunther M Roland <rolandg AT mit.edu>
- To: "sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
- Subject: Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion
- Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 15:31:04 +0000
On Apr 27, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Lajoie, John G [PHYSA] <lajoie AT iastate.edu> wrote:
(2) Project/Collaboration management just make a (damn) decision. The choice of a tracker for a reference design at this point does not need to imply or bias a final decision and neither side should take it as such. It is a necessary expedient at this time.
Now let me go out on a limb and anger part of the collaboration. Given (2) I would choose to simulate a MAPS (full ALICE ITS) tracker option at this time as opposed to an "ideal TPC". As we will be investing a lot of effort in these simulations I think they would have a longer useful lifetime for future reviews, etc., if we use a more realistic simulation. If we use an "ideal TPC" I think that opens us up to potential criticism we don't need. Just my $0.02.
We can argue about this ad infinitum. Neither option is fully developed and we will revisit this situation again. I've expressed a preference, but my main point is that the pain of making a decision is outweighed by the danger of dragging this on too long.
-
[Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion,
Gunther M Roland, 04/26/2016
-
Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion,
Lajoie, John G [PHYSA], 04/27/2016
-
Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion,
Gunther M Roland, 04/27/2016
-
Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion,
EdwardOBrien, 04/27/2016
-
Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion,
Lajoie, John G [PHYSA], 04/27/2016
-
Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion,
Frawley, Anthony, 04/27/2016
-
Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion,
EdwardOBrien, 04/27/2016
- Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion, Frawley, Anthony, 04/27/2016
- Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion, Gunther M Roland, 04/27/2016
- Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion, EdwardOBrien, 04/27/2016
-
Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion,
EdwardOBrien, 04/27/2016
-
Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion,
Frawley, Anthony, 04/27/2016
-
Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion,
Gunther M Roland, 04/27/2016
- Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion, Michael P. McCumber, 04/27/2016
-
Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion,
Lajoie, John G [PHYSA], 04/27/2016
-
Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion,
EdwardOBrien, 04/27/2016
-
Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion,
Gunther M Roland, 04/27/2016
-
Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion,
Lajoie, John G [PHYSA], 04/27/2016
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.