Difference between revisions of "General Meeting Summary 6/11/20"

From Cuawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "PARTICIPANTS: Alex Camsonne, Bogdan, Charles Hyde Dustin Keller, Rolf Ent, Fernando Barbosa, Carlos Munoz, Hamlet Mkrtchyan, Paulo Medeiros, Hakob Voskanyan, Tanja Horn, Marie...")
 
Line 18: Line 18:
 
::* For correlations to make point that can much better separate H/Htilde make plot 1D or emphasize the improvement, e.g. with numbers - highlight the most relevant part in the matrix and reduce emphasis on the rest of it
 
::* For correlations to make point that can much better separate H/Htilde make plot 1D or emphasize the improvement, e.g. with numbers - highlight the most relevant part in the matrix and reduce emphasis on the rest of it
  
 +
* Proposal can formally list the support of the NPS collaboration
  
'''TCS''' (Marie, Dustin, Vardan)
+
 
 +
'''2) TCS''' (Marie, Dustin, Vardan)
  
 
* Discussion of the posted document:
 
* Discussion of the posted document:

Revision as of 13:08, 11 June 2020

PARTICIPANTS: Alex Camsonne, Bogdan, Charles Hyde Dustin Keller, Rolf Ent, Fernando Barbosa, Carlos Munoz, Hamlet Mkrtchyan, Paulo Medeiros, Hakob Voskanyan, Tanja Horn, Marie Boer, Jacob Murphy, Eric Voutier, Vardan Tadevosyan, Julie Roche, Amy Comer, Vladimir Berdnikov


NPS EXPERIMENT PROPOSALS

1) DVCS with Positrons (Carlos)

  • Goal: clean separation of DVCS2 term from DVCS-BH interference - more stringent constraint on CFFs
  • Same experimental configuration as approved E12-13-010, 77 days, >5uA positrons, 25% of electron beam time
  • Discussion:
  • General comment on proposal document: add an executive summary - start document more general, start with formulas, then what is unique about positrons, why it is crucial to measure DVCS2
  • For fit improvement discussion perhaps best to say that shown are the uncertainties for the approved electron statistics and assumed positron statistics
  • For correlations to make point that can much better separate H/Htilde make plot 1D or emphasize the improvement, e.g. with numbers - highlight the most relevant part in the matrix and reduce emphasis on the rest of it
  • Proposal can formally list the support of the NPS collaboration


2) TCS (Marie, Dustin, Vardan)

  • Discussion of the posted document:
  • Document is 100 pages long - too long, too much on phenomenology, not enough on experiment
  • Very theory heavy - too much formalism, better to give highlights, most important points and references to the details
  • Include a high level summary as suggested for DVCS with positrons - must make clear in very beginning what the proposal is about
  • Experimental section incomplete - need to include background estimates etc.
  • Most crucial: will the detector actually work?
  • One possible approach: discuss in ~20 pages how addressed PAC questions and leave the rest as backup
  • Action Item: update document and circulate for comments


HV DIVIDERS - ANODE CURRENT (Fernando)


NEXT MEETING: THURSDAY 18 JUNE AT 9:00AM (ET)