STAR HardProbes PWG

[Sooraj Radhakrishnan <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>]

Hi Qian,

   Thanks for preparing these very nice slides. Sorry for the late comments. Please find some from me on your latest version (v6)

S3: Not sure, for J/Psi we should say experience evolution of QGP as its color neutral. May be could indicate that its a valuable tool to study the color screening in QGP?

S3: and J/Psi regeneration

S4: Does it is --> Is it

S5:Do you want to put the second bullet as a second sub-bullet to first?

S5: What do you refer to as the small systems here? Isobar? But there has been no discussion if it yet. Also, small system is used for pA or pp collisions, so might be better ti change as 'Does it have a system size dependence?'

S5: control non-flow --> reduce non-flow?

S6: precisely --> with good precision 

S6: second bullet, do you want to indicate the MB number of events and HT sampled luminosity?

S6: pin down non-flow --> reduce non-flow

S6: you say 'moderate sized system' here, so could avoid the small system discussion in the previous slide

S8: Highest precision measurement --> High precision measurement?

S9: Do you want to add references for the published results? Also on the following slides

S11: What do you mean by initial system size here? I think no geometry dependence and collision system dependence, as you conclude on S9, are also suited here. 

S11: Collision energy dependence was never discussed so far in the talk. Could be confusing here, better to remove

S12: You could add the formula for SP method here, similar to the next slide for the EP method

S13: Psi_r --> Psi_n in the top formular, it should be the EP, not the RP

S13: The v2_obs formula, second term sum should be only on Background

S13: Remember during last weeks PWG meeting it was mentioned that there is a normalization factor for the background, is it already applied in the plots?

S13: You are showing the 3-4 GeV bin here, which we dont show in the results. I think its better to change, there will be question why its not shown

S13: I think you need STAR Preliminary label on these plots as it directly gives the v2

S16: Do you want to switch the order of the bullets here?

S16: is the dominant

thanks

Sooraj

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 8:55 PM tc88qy via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Yi
   It will be good that Yu-ming can also send me the sys. uncert. at the
high-pT range at P15.
  I am ok with a mass from HT data at P13
   Please ignore P18, I did not put sys. uncert. on this plot. P18 will
be delete.

Qian Yang

On 2022-06-10 22:33, Yi Yang wrote:
> Hi Qian,
>
> Thanks a lot for the new version.
> I have one last minor comment/suggestion for your consideration.
>  - p13: It would be good to put a mass from the high tower trigger to
> show the statistics (Yu-Ming can send 4-5 GeV at 0-80% to you).
>
> Question: what are the differences between p16(right) and p18? The
> systematic uncertainties in Au+Au seem to be different.
>
> Cheers,
> Yi
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 10:19 PM tc88qy <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Barbara
>> Thanks for your sign-off
>>
>> Hi All
>> Do you have any other comments?
>>
>> Qian Yang
>>
>> On 2022-06-10 19:50, Barbara Trzeciak wrote:
>>> Hi Qian,
>>> thanks. I sign off.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Barbara
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 8:04 AM tc88qy <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Barbar
>>>>
>>>> I put the Au+Au results on slide 16 for comparison, also the sys.
>>>> unc.
>>>> have been added.
>>>> The same version v6 can be found in the same link.
>>>>
>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>
>>>> On 2022-06-10 12:48, Barbara Trzeciak wrote:
>>>>> Hi Qian,
>>>>> I think we should have the isobar and Au+Au comparison. These
>> are
>>>>> results that we have. And the isobar results at hight pT have
>>>> worse
>>>>> precision than hight pT Au+Au, right ? It's even visible on the
>>>> plot
>>>>> where you integrate into two bins.  And when you write about the
>>>>> precision, you should be then clear the improvement is at low
>> pT,
>>>>> below 4 GeV.
>>>>> Also, we discussed that it would be good to have sys. unc. for
>>>> Au+Au
>>>>> plotted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Barbara
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022, 04:32 Yu-Ming Liu, <a0978279515 AT gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Qian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Attached are the plots in pdf version.
>>>>>> I noticed that there are something wrong in formula v2 observed
>>>> in
>>>>>> p13. cos(2(phi-psi2)) is the correct one not cos(2(phi)-psi2) .
>>>>>> I think cosine distribution can show the particles relate to
>> the
>>>>>> plane angle. Particles have a trend lying in-plane and shoot up
>>>> from
>>>>>> plane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Yu-Ming
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tc88qy via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> 於
>>>> 2022年6月10日
>>>>>> 週五 上午9:48寫道：
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Barbara
>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments. Please find my rely inline.
>>>>>>> New version (v6)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2022-06-09 22:07, Barbara Trzeciak wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Qian,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks for the updates, the slides look good to me.
>>>>>>>> Just last comments.
>>>>>>>> - There were suggestions to have a comparison of isobar
>> results
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> fine binning (not the pT integrated one) in 0-80% centrality
>> to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Au+Au results at the same centrality.  You can add the Au+Au
>> on
>>>>>>> slide
>>>>>>>> 14 or 16.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tried it in the backup slides. In the plot, high-pT range
>> are
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> distracting.
>>>>>>> It will give an impression of Au+Au have the better precision.
>>>>>>> That why I do not put the Au+Au results. If conveners think
>>>> better
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> also put Au+Au results, I am fine with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - s15: improvement of precision is not so clear to me for
>> high
>>>>>>> pT. The
>>>>>>>> blue point seems to have actually larger uncertainty than the
>>>>>>> Au+Au
>>>>>>>> point, and the blue result is in a wider pT range. Also,
>> there
>>>>>>> is no
>>>>>>>> legend for the blue point.
>>>>>>>> And that's also another reason I think it's better to have a
>>>>>>>> comparison of Au+Au and isobar with the original isobar
>>>> binning.
>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>> say on this slide we have better precision now, but the shown
>>>>>>> isobar
>>>>>>>> points are in wide bins, which of course reduces the
>>>>>>> uncertainties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have different binning comparing to Au+Au. we have three
>> bins
>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>> 0.3 to 4 GeV/c. While Au+Au results have only 2 bins below 4
>>>>>>> GeV/c. For
>>>>>>> each data point the error bars is comparable between Isobar
>> data
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> Au+Au data.
>>>>>>> By looking at the data, your instant feeling is that the
>>>>>>> measurement
>>>>>>> precision is not improved. Just like in slide 18
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - s16: that affecting -> that affects
>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>> - s17:  no obvious system size and energy dependence -> no
>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>> collision system and energy dependence at the same <N_part>
>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>> - s17: effect dominated -> effect dominates
>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And regarding your question. What we agreed during meetings
>>>>>>> before,
>>>>>>>> when we discussed the non-flow estimation, is that at high pT
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> uncertainties are anyway large and the non-flow will not
>> change
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> conclusions of zero v2. So we prioritized finalizing other
>>>> parts
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the analysis.
>>>>>>>> For the publication, the non-flow effect will be estimated.
>>>>>>> ok
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Barbara
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 2:37 PM tc88qy via Star-hp-l
>>>>>>>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>>>> Please find the new version in the same link(v5).
>>>>>>>>> As Barbara suggested it would be good that Yu-ming can
>> prepare
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> materials for TPC event-plane method in slide 13.
>>>>>>>>> Please provide me the systematic uncertainties in slide 14
>>>>>>>>> (20-60%)and 15 (pT-integral) ASAP.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have a concern about the TPC method. We currently do not
>>>>>>>>> estimate
>>>>>>>>> the non-flow contribution, which could be a main source for
>>>>>>> high-pT
>>>>>>>>> J/psi especially for a small system.
>>>>>>>>> Comparing to Au+Au with similar N_part, the non-flow is
>> about
>>>>>>> 0.2
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> J/psi. If I was asked  about the non-flow contribution
>> during
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> meeting. How do we reply? we should have a strategy now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For other comments please find inline.
>>>>>>>>> Also to remind you, my talk is June 14, which is 5 days to
>> go.
>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>>> please send out your comments ASAP.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yi please find my reply inline below.
>>>>>>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-06-09 14:55, Yi Yang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Qian,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the updated version.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have some comments/suggestions for your consideration:
>>>>>>>>>> - p3: (top part) you should mention that "early creation"
>> and
>>>>>>>>> "long
>>>>>>>>>> lifetime" can lead you to understand the QGP evolution,
>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>>> these two pullets seem to have no connection.
>>>>>>>>>> (bottom part) Make them larger? And highlight v2 with
>>>>>>>>>> different colors?
>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>> - p5: In the previous page (p4), you compare LHC and RHIC,
>> I
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> think that it would be better if you could compare the v2
>>>> from
>>>>>>> LHC
>>>>>>>>>> here again and mention what we can learn more than LHC.
>>>>>>>>>> (I understand that you want to emphasize the systema
>>>>>>>>> size on
>>>>>>>>>> this page, but it seems more natural compared to the LHC's
>>>>>>>>> results.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - p6: minimum bias + high tower
>>>>>>>>>> But the EPD has worse event plane resolution, right?
>>>>>>>>> Should
>>>>>>>>>> we mention it? Probably you can mention it orally.
>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>> - p7: identification --> Identification   (two places)
>>>>>>>>>> You should add a description on "EPD ', like the other
>>>>>>>>> three
>>>>>>>>>> subdetecctors.
>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>> -  p8: More differential measurements
>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>> -  p9 and p10: I would put "central" and "peripheral" in
>> the
>>>>>>>>> title to
>>>>>>>>>> make it clear.
>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>> - p10: you have the cartoons for collisions, can you add
>> them
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>> as well?
>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>> - p13: Yu-Ming also has a very nice J/psi mass plot, can
>> you
>>>>>>> add
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>> of them in this page?
>>>>>>>>>> - p14: I remember what we discussed on the right-handed
>> plot
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>> 20 - 60% for both SP and EP from isobar (like the
>> left-handed
>>>>>>>>> one),
>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>> (Yu-Ming is working on this plot now.)
>>>>>>>>>> Second bullet: I am not sure I can get "Significant
>>>>>>>>> non-flow
>>>>>>>>>> suppression by using scalar-product method" from the plot
>> (I
>>>>>>>>> assume
>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about the right-handed one). Since you
>> might
>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>> the right-handed plot, you might consider restating this
>>>>>>> bullet.
>>>>>>>>>> (By the way, I thought it is "known" that using the
>>>>>>>>> non-flow
>>>>>>>>>> contribution will be smaller using scalar-product method,
>>>>>>> right?)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - p15: I would suggest using the pT dependent plot for
>> isobar
>>>>>>>>> (the
>>>>>>>>>> right-handed plot on p14), and please add the HT result
>> here.
>>>>>>>>>> - Most precise v2 measurement
>>>>>>>>>> - It would be good to make the v2 = 0.003 +/- 0.017 +/-
>>>>>>>>>> 0.010 in one line
>>>>>>>>> We are comparing a result with zero. Then what we want to
>>>>>>> answer is
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> question of yes or no. I think it would be more suitable to
>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>> audience an idea of our final conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - p16: Adding J/psi v2 from LHC in the right-handed plot?
>>>>>>>>> The reason I did not put LHC v2 result is that this is a
>> short
>>>>>>> talk.
>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>> will be good to more focus on our physics picture. RAA and
>> v2
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> RHIC
>>>>>>>>> alone is already fruitful for this talk.
>>>>>>>>>> - p17: Should mention RAA first (this is the order of your
>>>>>>>>>> presentation).
>>>>>>>>>> Any remarks from comparing the RHIC and LHC results?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> Yi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 7:07 PM tc88qy via Star-hp-l
>>>>>>>>>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Barbara and all
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After a local STAR group rehearsal, I updated the new
>>>> version
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> same link (v4)
>>>>>>>>>>> Please send out your comments. Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-06-05 09:50, tc88qy via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Barbara
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your suggestion, Please find my rely inline.
>> and
>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>> version of slides are in the same link
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-06-04 16:37, Barbara Trzeciak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Qian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for the update. The slides are very nice, please
>>>>>>> find my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Barbara
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> s3 - I would also mention CNM effects
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here I want to more focus on the hot medium effect. so I
>>>> did
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> mention CNM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> s4 -  How it affect ->  How is it affected
>>>>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>>>>> s5 - w be established -> evolves (?)
>>>>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>>>>> s6 - v2 -> v_2
>>>>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>>>>> s8 - make the left plot larger
>>>>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>>>>> s9- dependence were shown -> dependence is observed
>>>>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>>>>> s11 - you can emphasise here precision of the isobar
>>>>>>>>> measurement
>>>>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>>>>> s13 - it would be good to have better quality plots
>> here.
>>>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yu-Ming can prepare example procedure figures with
>> better
>>>>>>>>>>> graphics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, are these efficiency weighed, is there some
>> physics
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> extract ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, It will be good that Yu-Ming can prepare one page
>> of
>>>>>>>>> slides
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> the procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The graphic is from Yu-Ming's preliminary request slides,
>> I
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is efficiency weighted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> s14 - I think it makes more sense to compare 0-80%
>> isobar
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> 0-80%
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Au+Au - so to have the Au+Au results on the left plot.
>> But
>>>>>>>>> let's
>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see what others think and we can then decide on the
>> final
>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these plots.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, for the 20-60% range please keep in mind that
>>>> Yu-Ming
>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> his HT results early next week - in this case please
>>>> update
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> plot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> s15 - since we have higher pT results it would be nice
>> to
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>>> also the integrated v2 for higher pT > 4 GeV/c from the
>>>> HT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ok
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> s15 - it's not so obvious to me how much better
>> precision
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> isobar compared to Au+Au. Is it possible to combine
>> Au+Au
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> pT
>>>>>>>>>>> < 4
>>>>>>>>>>>>> GeV/c ? Also, I think it would be better not to combine
>>>>>>> stat.
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> sys.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncertainties for Au+Au results (also for the other
>>>>>>>>> comparison),
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> might show better statistical differences between the
>> two
>>>>>>>>>>> results.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The combination is not just combine the final physics
>> data
>>>>>>>>> point,
>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>> do the extraction from the beginning.
>>>>>>>>>>>> and the stat. and sys. are all needs re-calculation.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not put sys. uncertainties for the Au+Au results,
>> the
>>>>>>>>> error
>>>>>>>>>>> bars
>>>>>>>>>>>> are just stat. uncertainties.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But the sys. uncertainties is small for Au+Au.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> s15 - for low pT, i.e. ~< 1 GeV/c, we expect 0 v2
>> because
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> mass
>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect. If it's fast, can you calculate integrated v2
>> for
>>>>>>> pT >
>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>>>> GeV/c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I need to do some change to have this results. Let's us
>>>> see,
>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> have the final results next week.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 8:54 AM tc88qy via Star-hf-l
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <star-hf-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello All
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As we discussed in yesterday's HP meeting. I have
>> updated
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slides to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new version.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please find in the same link. Your comments and
>>>> suggestion
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> welcome.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-31 19:27, webmaster--- via Star-hf-l wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear star-hf-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qian Yang (qianyangstar AT gmail.com) has submitted a
>>>>>>> material
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please have a look:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59787
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have any problems with the review process,
>> please
>>>>>>>>>>> contact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star-hf-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star-hf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hf-l
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star-hf-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star-hf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hf-l
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>>>>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l

--

Sooraj Radhakrishnan

Research Scientist,

Department of Physics

Kent State University

Kent, OH 44243

Physicist Postdoctoral Affiliate

Nuclear Science Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road

Berkeley, CA 94720

Ph: 510-495-2473

Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov