General Meeting Summary 5/30/13

TECHNICAL REVIEW DISCUSSION

• Each proposal will have a 20 min presentation (+questions) at the PAC meeting. All presentations will be in the same session. Order of presentation is: SIDIS, DVCS, WACS.

• There seems to be no need to respond to the TAC report comments though they should be addressed in the PAC meeting slides (where needed).

• Idea is to address general and instrumentation comments in the first (SIDIS) presentation. These are:

• Comments 1-5, and 11 from the DVCS TAC review
• Comments 1-5, 6, 10, 11, and from the WACS TAC review (here, (2) and (5) are remarks that may not need to be addressed explicitly, and (3) could also be addressed in the WACS presentation)

• TAC COMMENTS TO ADDRESS IN FIRST (SIDIS) PRESENTATION:

• Intrumentation and reviews (Comments 1-3, and 5 in DVCS TAC report): best way to address these seems to show the detector and how it fits into the hall. This can be done in the first (SIDIS) presentation and should not need further addressing in individual presentation.

• Computing (Comment 4 in DVCS TAC report): Some discussion if this is a major issue. Hall A ran successfully at about twice the Qweak rate of 10 Mb/s stated in the report and Hall B typically runs higher as well. There are two ways to read out: waveform and integrated values. The latter should not be an issue for data. One way to address this comment is to present a representative example in the first discussion. Following presentations can then refer to it and could indicate if requirements above/below example. It would be good to have some numbers for this estimate, e.g., event size from fadc etc.

• Integrated Radiation Dose and curing (Comment 11 in DVCS TAC report): Some discussion on how to address this comment. Best way may be to include the values from each experiment in the general presentation. In the individual presentations experiments could refer to it. Curing may be best addressed by each experiment separately.

• TAC COMMENTS TO ADDRESS IN DVCS PRESENTATION:

• Comment 6: proposed momentum is close to the value of 7.3 GeV/c given in the TAC review. However, the proposed value is within the +-8% acceptance of the HMS. It may be good to show in the presentation that experiment has flexibility in central momentum setting, e.g., that experiment could still be successful if actual HMS central momentum was 7.25 GeV/c.

• Comment 7/8: Without detailed information on scheduling it is difficult to include an estimate of commissioning, e.g., tune-up and spectrometer checkout. For this comment it should thus be sufficient to include a list of the required time for BCM calibration, polarimetry (+required precision), and dummy target running.

• Comment 9: systematic uncertainty

• Comment 10: this comment seems to be due to a misunderstanding of the proposed measurements, e.g., Hall A/C complement, low-x, and high-Q^2 measurements. The proposal already includes a description of these and also figures of all settings in kinematic phase space. The presentation can clarify this misunderstanding if needed.

• Comment 12: this comment refers to the real/random ratio that can be calculated

• Comment Jay Benesch on magnet: this comment will be addressed in a technical review after the proposal is approved. Details will depend on details like small angle requirements, etc.

• TAC COMMENTS TO ADDRESS IN WACS PRESENTATION:

• Comment 3: The value of 150 kW for the PS was calculated for a specific coil (for comparison, the new power supply for SBS is 650 kW). The choice of power supply is flexible though and could adjust to use the same one as for the other NPS experiments.

• Comment 6: previous RCS experiment close to estimated integrated radiation dose. No explicit response needed.

• Comment 7: placing of radiator

• Comment 8: proposed momentum in kinematic point 5F exceeds the value of 7.3 GeV/c given in the TAC review. However, the proposed value is within the +-8% acceptance of the HMS. It may be good to show in the presentation that experiment has flexibility in central momentum setting, e.g., that experiment could still be successful if actual HMS central momentum was 7.25 GeV/c.

• Comment 9: Without detailed information on scheduling it is difficult to include an estimate of commissioning, e.g., tune-up and spectrometer checkout. For this comment it should thus be sufficient to include a list of the required time for BCM calibration, polarimetry (+required precision), and dummy target running.

• Comment 12: fill in the information on the proposal cover sheet.

ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING:

• Discussion of the draft slides for the PAC meeting

NEXT MEETING: THUR, 13 JUNE at 9AM (EDT)