From llope@physics.rice.edu Fri Feb 19 18:42:13 1999 Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 19:32:21 -0600 (CST) From: W.J. Llope Reply-To: starspec-l@bnl.gov To: starspec-l@bnl.gov Cc: llope@physics.rice.edu Subject: Solicitation of FY2000 RHIC Beam Use Proposals hi folks, below is a request from john harris reagrding specific proposals for rhic beam use in year-1. following that below is the request from tom kirk to the rhic experiment spokespeople for one such proposal from each experiment. spectra is to contribute to the (thank god there's a handy FLA) RBUP, "rhic beam use proposal", from star to be presented at the May 24-25 PAC meeting... along the way spectra is to first contribute to a written version of star's proposal that is due in kirk's office on april 9. with this in mind, john forumlated a set of specific questions (below) and set a deadline for each PWG's response to him of feb 26. next friday. craig and i try to bang out a draft spectra response in the next few days - but note we are both seriously swamped with MDC2 efforts. with that in mind it would be great if you each could start thinking in specifics about the answers to the questions below if *you* could make the rhic beam use choice based solely on *your* physics i nterests in year1. if have any comments along these lines, by all means please send them to the list a.s.a.p... otherwise we'd ask that you keep an eye out for the draft and comment on that a.s.a.p... this is the time to speak up if you're looking for any specific data sets from year 1.... thanks much, bill and craig Dear PWG Convenors, Part I: ------- I realize you are busy with the MDC2 preparations, but wish to reiterate a request I made at the PWG Convenors Meeting at the Collaboration Meeting and to specify precisely what I request from you. We can discuss this on the conference call today. I request from each PWG convenor (to be provided to me in latex format by February 26) a brief document stating the beamtime requested in STAR for the first year of RHIC operation. This should specify the physics needs of your PWG as justification for the requested beamtime. Each request should include: 1) the beam/energy/trigger combinations and physics justification for each combination; 2) the physics issues/questions to be addressed, especially the relationship between the physics goals and the various beam/energy/trigger configurations; 3) the statistics you need for each physics case and for each run/trigger cobination, and the number of events in each centrality trigger mode - minimum bias, mid-central (~ 20% geometrical x-section), central(~3-5% geometrical x-section), or other. Is there a representative figure from simulation for each physics result? If not, when might we have one (before end of March?)? 4) a statement of the physics priority for the beam/energy/trigger run segments and numbers of events; 5) a statement of the time and resources necessary for the subsequent data-analysis. Guidelines: 3 triggers as stated above for each beam-energy combination. Max number of beam/energy configurations is probably two but I will entertain requests for three if justified. See appendix of Kirk's letter for guidelines from RHIC's perspective. Part II: -------- In addition, I request from you a separate document (to be submitted to me by March 25) on 1) the sequence of physics that your PWG proposes to extract from the summer run, ranked in priority by importance to the overall physics at RHIC and the ease of extraction assuming that it will take some time for the detector to be fully understood. Assume that we are able to accumulate 10-50,000 events in each trigger mode (specified above). 2) the readiness of your PWG to analyze data from this summer's run in terms of software and manpower, and your plan for being ready by July 1. This should state specifically each major software component that is necessary to analyze data, its present state, what needs to be done, who will do it, over what time period, and when it will be ready. It is time to make sure that we will be able to make effective use of any events that we take this summer. I expect that all of you will be spending 100% of your research time on these issues, as we are getting down to the wire. I am happy to discuss this with you this afternoon at the phone call or any other time. Thanks. Sincerely, John ------------------------------------------------------------------- | John W. Harris email: John.Harris@yale.edu | | WNSL - West, Room 311 phone: (203) 432 6106 | | Physics Department, Yale University fax: (203) 432 8926 | | P.O. Box 208124 | | 272 Whitney Avenue | | New Haven, CT 06520-8124, USA | ------------------------------------------------------------------- >From tkirk@bnl.gov Sun Jan 31 15:46:04 EST 1999 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:47:27 -0500 To: busza@mit.edu, John.Harris@yale.edu, videbaek@bnl.gov, Zacj@bnl.gov From: Tom Kirk Subject: FY2000 RHIC Beam Use Proposals Cc: harrison@bnl.gov, Lowenstein@bnl.gov, ludlam1@bnl.gov, murtaghm@bnl.gov, ozaki@bnl.gov, ppaul@bnl.gov, Pile@bnl.gov, roser1@bnl.gov, Laura@bnl.gov, yamin1@bnl.gov, tkirk@bnl.gov X-Status: January 31, 1999 To: RHIC Experiment Spokespersons From: T. Kirk, ALD-HENP Subject: Solicitation of FY2000 RHIC Beam Use Proposals We have discussed in our RHIC Spokespersons meetings, the philosophy of conducting an annual solicitation of proposals from each of the RHIC experiments for the coming year's: beams composition; beam energies; specific length and sequence of runs. These technical requests are to be accompanied by the anticipated physics benefits expected to result from the proposed sequence of beams/energies. I assume somewhat different programs of beams/energies will be optimum for each separate experiment so the Laboratory will ask the HENP Program Advisory Committee (PAC) to consider the several proposals and recommend an overall optimum beam/energy sequence for the coming year's RHIC program. With the distribution of this memorandum, I am moving from concept to practice for the FY2000 RHIC running period. This period will commence on November 1, 1999 and run for up to 37 weeks (the exact duration will depend on DOE budget numbers not yet known in detail). A range of running period durations is given in Appendix A that, hopefully, will bracket our uncertainty. Specifically, I am asking that a "RHIC Beam Use Proposal" (RBUP) from each RHIC experiment (BRAHMS, PHENIX, PHOBOS, STAR) be provided to my office no later than close of business on FRIDAY, APRIL 9, 1999 The specific requirments for the proposals (including BNL/DOE imposed constraints) are attached to this memorandum as Appendix A. Each experiment will also be asked to present their beam/physics case orally to the PAC on the FIRST DAY of the meeting. The PAC will then be asked to discuss the written proposals plus the oral presentations and make written recommendations to the Laboratory on an optimum physics program and its associated beam energy/species requirements for the following running period. The date of the Spring 1999 PAC Meeting (to be held at BNL) is MONDAY-TUESDAY, MAY 24-25, 1999 In some ways, this first round of RHIC Beam Use Proposals (RBUPs) will be primarily used to develop the process itself since the actual plans for bringing on and using the heavy ion (Au x Au) beams is already far advanced and it is understood by all users that building up luminosity will be a very important first year activity. It is also understood that little or no pp running will be attempted and then primarily for the purpose of accelerator studies (only one beam will be instrumented with spin snakes/rotators). Still, the FY2000 run has a serious physics goal and it will be useful to perfect the beam use proposal process and its connection to the annual spring PAC meeting. One interesting suggestion made to me is that BNL might sponsor one or more workshops among the RHIC experiments with the purpose of identifying compatible running modes for all the experiments. This could be a good potential way to begin preparation for the individual proposals but I don't want to bring peer-pressure on experiments to conform that becomes very coercive. We should discuss the benefits of this idea in the next Spokespersons Meeting. As noted, the main purpose for the spring PAC meeting will be to review the annual beam use proposals. A secondary purpose for each PAC meeting, however, will be to discuss fixed-target physics proposals that have been received by BNL and that could be candidates for RHIC-compatible running in AGS beams. The practical prospects for such running are still equivocal but not absent. I will try to get our RHIC Spokespersons Meetings restarted for 1999 so that we will have a forum to continue our discussions of general issues. If you have questions about the Beam Use Proposals, please contact me or other BNL persons as appropriate. ********************* Appendix A - Requirements ************************ APPENDIX A FY2000 RHIC Beam Use Proposals Due FRIDAY, APRIL 9, 1999 Each of the RHIC Experiments anticipated to run or test apparatus in the FY2000 operating period must submit a "RHIC Beam Use Proposal" to the BNL Office of the Associate Director of HENP by the deadline in the title. The proposals must contain the following information: 1) a statement of the experiment's requested sequence of time-ordered RHIC Collider beam run segments; each beam segment is to be specified by: beam species composition (ie, AuxAu); beam energies; operating time in beam-on hours; the time-average luminosity assumed for each segment should be explicitly stated to characterize the integrated luminosity expected to be obtained for that segment; 2) a statement of the relative priorities assigned by the experiment to the run segments specified above (it is anticipated that this explication could be rather complex since a non-zero amount of running in each condition may be more important than reaching the full integrated luminosity in any particular segment); 3) a statement of the physics issues/questions able to be to be addressed by the proposed program; the relationship between physics goals and the different beam configurations/sequences should be made clear and comprehensible to the PAC; 4) a statement of the Collaboration's ability to staff the requested run and the subsequent data analysis; it is anticipated that funding, recruiting or other circumstances may introduce qualifications that affect the items above; these issues/uncertainties must be made clear in the beam use proposal. Other issues and questions may be included in the proposal at the discretion of the collaborations. The spokespersons are encouraged to be succinct in providing the requested information and are urged to consult among themselves and with the Laboratory management in developing their requests. Such consultation beforehand will potentially make the job of reconciling each experiment's needs easier in deciding the final announced program for the run. The Laboratory may organize one or more formal organization meetings of all the RHIC experiments to aid this process. GUIDANCE FROM THE LABORATORY includes the following constraints: 1) the anticipated maximum total number of Collider running weeks is 37; the possible minimum number is 27; the run begins November 1, 1999; 2) the majority of beam time is expected to be devoted to colliding beams of Au on Au at 100 GeV/amu (top energy) and a key goal will be to increase luminosity at the four experiment interaction points; 3) other beam species may be requested but the difficulty in achieving the running conditions goes roughly in the sequence: AuxAu - top energies; A'xA' (A' is another nuclear species) - top energies; symmetric beams - lower energies; unsymmetric beams and species (easiest to most difficult). 3) no experimental data acquisition time is planned for pp running in FY2000 but there may be parasitic time associated with accelerator studies. Consultation with the ALD-HENP's Office prior to proposal submission is requested. The default for submission will be 50 paper copies of each proposal (but some form of electronic distribution to the PAC may be workable following consultation). Questions about the proposal submissions should be made to Peter Yamin, Secretary to the PAC (Yamin@bnl.gov), or to the ALD-HENP, tkirk@bnl.gov. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.J. Llope, Ph.D. http://bonner-mac8.rice.edu/ T.W. Bonner Nuclear Lab. llope@physics.rice.edu Rice University, MS-315 6100 S. Main phone: 713-527-4741 Houston, TX 77005-1892 fax: 713-285-5215 For a new monitor, hammer 16-penny nail here: --> <-- I was either at home or on the road when i sent this. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~