Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sphenix-l - Re: [Sphenix-l] [Response to ADL charge] Continuing detector scenario discussion

sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: sPHENIX is a new detector at RHIC.

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • 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.

Hi John,

Thanks for your comments, and thanks for being frank! We should make the decision very soon (24h?). I hope more people will weigh in shortly. We are talking to the simulations gurus to make sure that we don't decide on a reference configuration that we are not actually ready to simulate right away. 

Gunther





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page