sPHENIX is a new detector at RHIC.

[Jamie Nagle <jamie.nagle AT colorado.edu>]

Hello Dave and Gunther,

I think the document reads well and makes the key points clear.   I have just a couple of remaining suggestions.

Sincerely,

Jamie

1.    One might want in the Executive Summary to state what the charge is and a date for that charge...  The charge is specific to address the $38M baseline as shown in the August 2017 review and present a re-scoped baseline of $32M.   Then you can say that the $38M baseline is shown in Table XX, and the re-scoped option at $32M in Table YY.   Including the dates is important.

2.   On the jet performance, I realize we have gone back and forth on this quite a bit so I want to include a positive request.   The sentence starting on line 89:

"Further studies indicate that the lost performance can be recovered (or even 

improved compared to the calorimeter-only jets in the nominal configuration) through an optimal combination of calorimeter and track based information, following, e.g., the particle flow algorithm used in CMS and ILC jet reconstruction."

I believe the statement is not factually correct, since only an algorithm without pulling truth information can demonstrate this point.   I have a sentence suggestion below.

"Future studies utilizing an optimal combination of calorimeter and track based information follow, e.g. the particle flow algorithms used in CMS and ILC jet reconstruction, may recover (or even improve) the calorimeter-only jet performance in the nominal configuration.    This avenue is particular important to pursue as removing a longitudinal segment of the calorimeter reduces key cross checks such as a jet response as a function of longitudinal center-of-gravity of the shower."

I think it is important to not leave a sentence that can be used to undermine recovering the full scope in sPHENIX.

Sincerely,

Jamie 

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:37 AM, John Lajoie <lajoie AT iastate.edu> wrote:

Hi Martin,

    Good eye - the fragmentation plots have been updated with additional statistics at high-z since they were shown at the last GM. That makes the statistics kind of funny, so I think it's better plotted with the errors - see attached replacements for Fig. 1.3 with the error bars shown.  I think these show more clearly that any deviations from the SS310 efficiency as a function of leading z are small in both configurations.

Regards,
John

On 10/22/2017 9:44 AM, Martin Purschke wrote:

All,

nicely written document! Some remarks...

I cannot claim that I have been at every meeting, but I don't recall
seeing the 15%-ish *increase* in efficiency in Fig 1.3 (right) at low z
values. This large difference just between the instrumented and
non-instrumented setups (where no instrumentation seems better) is
somewhat counter-intuitive to my eye.

Rosi presented John's distributions in slightly different form at the
Oct 6 fortnightly meeting, and there it looked less pronounced (in both
cases the green curve). Also there the low-z enhancement was in the
charged leading particle plot, neutral was flat, opposite of fig. 1.3.
Is there a simple explanation why one would expect that?


In line 114 the arrow in Y-> e+e- points the wrong way.

My 5cts,

	Martin


On 10/21/17 00:02, Gunther M Roland wrote:

Friends,

As discussed at the General Meeting today, we are forwarding draft 1 of our document outlining the detector scope for a $32M cost cap. The pdf file can be found at 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5wyutbndogozm5q/sPH-GEN-2017-002_v1.pdf?dl=0
(we'll provide another link tomorrow for those that can't access dropbox)

Please send your comments in reply to this mail, keeping the [sPH-GEN-2017-002] tag in the subject line***. Comments received by close-of-business on Monday, 10/23, will be most useful. 

Cheers,

Gunther and Dave

***we will move future reviews to an sphenix-notes-l AT bnl.gov list, but the list couldn't be generated in time for this note.
_______________________________________________
sPHENIX-l mailing list
sPHENIX-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-l

--

John Lajoie

Professor of Physics

Iowa State University

 

(515) 294-6952

lajoie AT iastate.edu

Contact me: john.lajoie

--

||--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|| James L. Nagle   
|| Professor of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder
|| EMAIL:   jamie.nagle AT colorado.edu
|| SKYPE:  jamie-nagle        
|| WEB:      http://spot.colorado.edu/~naglej 
||---------------------------------------------------------------------------------