Hello Hal--In the discussion for transverse, we used 20-30% L of
longitudinal.
Therefore, we need to show enough delivered luminosity to reach say .75 x L.
With the new plot from Wolfram (on web) we can see a maximum L for
200 GeV at the end of 2008 of 300 pb^-1 delivered.  We will use some
fraction
of that for "realism" as we discussed (I suggested 70%).  You point out
that we should then use 75% of the realistic L for longitudinal.  I also
notice that Wolfram has started the 500 GeV luminosity in 2009 (vs. an
engineering year) and reaches a max. of 1500 pb^-1 at the end of 2012.

I suggest that we show 2009 as 200 GeV running also, which will then
give 265 pb^-1 (Wolfram needs to check this) for realistic
delivered longitudinal luminosity (.7 x .75 x 500, based on previous
Fig. 21 in 1st draft).

We would then dispense with the engineering run for 500 GeV.  We can
either plan only longitudinal running for 500 GeV, and end in 2012
with 1150 pb^1 max (.7 x 1150 = 800 pb^-1 realistic delivered), or
go thru 2013, with again 25% transverse.

My vote is to go thru 2013.  Anybody disagree or have other suggestions?
(I will check with RIKEN on whether showing the plan this way is a
concern.)

Gerry

This is just a plan, of course.  One point is that at 500 GeV we collect
data in the range of the 200 GeV running (for x, not Q^2),
as well as lower x.

-----Original Message-----
From: hms [mailto:hms@hep.anl.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 11:34 AM
To: Gerry Bunce
Cc: Hal Spinka
Subject: Re: RHIC spin plan telephone meeting notes


Hi Gerry,

     This was a nice summary of yesterday's meeting.  I
wanted to point out an obvious issue for the schedule that
does not seem to have been covered in any of the discussions
so far, but did come up within STAR.  The schedule/runplan
will need to take into account running for both longitudinal
and transverse beams.  Your 100 pb^-1 etc. below would
presumably be for just A_LL, or is this combined?

                       Best regards,

                             Hal

Gerry Bunce wrote:
>
> Notes on telephone meeting, Jan. 18 2005
>
> There is a new version of the draft on the web.
> (Main changes in section 2)
>
> Section 2. discussed science section of plan
>         --new x vs. p_T plot
>                 --consider x vs. Q^2 plot with Q^2=p_T^2 for photon, pi
>                 and Q^2=m^2 for heavy quark, W
>
>         --which global fit to use?  AAC shows both positive and negative
>         Delta G, so it is easier to use to compare sensitivities; show
>         differences in pdfs for different global fits in a figure; briefly
>         describe the differences
>
> --For sensitivities, use 100 pb^-1 recorded, P=0.7 for 200 GeV and
> 300 pb^-1 for 500 GeV for now, for Phenix.
> For Star use this for jets and such (TPC), and 190 pb^-1 at 200 GeV
> and 500 pb^-1 for 500 GeV for fast detectors only
> (see introduction of section 5).
>
>         --we also need to make a table that includes other factors, for
each
>         probe that we show.  Factors need to include p_T range and
selection
>         efficiency, so that the experiment takes data at the claimed live
>         time.  This table will be included in section 5.  (I will prepare
>         this, and then each expt. needs to fill it in.)
>
>         --we plan to use 70% of maximum luminosity for the sensitivities
>         and we will adjust the years spent at 200 and 500 to get this.  I
am
>         sure we will revisit this later.
>
> --suggested that we show some intermediate sensitivities as program
> progresses.
>
> --some discussion on W--outline.  Will have this draft for our meeting
next
> week.
>
> --New introduction for transverse spin.  Akio, Les, Matthias, Jianwei to
> work on draft for this section.
>
> 2.7 section (what else is going on)--We thought that we can use this
section
> to describe the experiments and briefly discuss their contributions and
> limitations, with no figures--we would point to the sensitivities on the
> various figures presented earlier (Delta G, Delta qbar, transverse spin).
> Ernst may have more or other suggestions.
>
> 2.8 Elastics--Needs pizzaz.  Include carbon, proton plots and hadronic
spin
> flip question.
>
> 2.9 Future ideas section.  Mike's and Vladimir/Sudoh's need to be folded
> together.  Mike's table 2 should drop 650 GeV, and 100 fb^-1.  Claims need
> to be checked.
>
> 3. Accelerator section--In good shape.  There will be a new fig. 21, and
it
> will include a minimum at 1/3 max.  Polarimetry will probably add the idea
> presented by Anatoli Zelinski Friday (and advocated by Sandro Bravar)
> --a new polarimeter for each RHIC beam based on a thick unpolarized
> hydrogen jet.  This is an attractive way to deal with the problem of
> radiation damage for the present carbon polarimeter detectors and
> uncertainty in the carbon energy loss in these detectors.
>
> --Hal pointed out (Friday) that we need words that state that the
> polarimeters will work at 250 GeV too.
>
> 4. Experiments section.  We expect a Phenix draft/outline by next week,
but
> complete sections only by the week after (Jan. 31).
>
> Our schedule:
>
> Jan. 25, 1700 EDT--telephone meeting to discuss mostly section 2 (expect
> progress).  Also Phenix part of section 4.
>
> Jan. 31, 1700 EDT--request that complete sections be sent to Yuji to put
> on web--this should result in a complete 1st draft.
>
> Feb. 1, 1700 EDT--Discuss 1st draft.  Possibly soon after send to expts.
for
> their input.
>
> Feb. 3--likely date for RHIC spin collab. meeting and discussion of plan
> (several people cannot make Feb. 4)
>
> It was a very good meeting.
>
>                                         Gerry