Re: Comments on draft talk

["George Lolos" <George.Lolos@uregina.ca>]

Hi Elton:

Thanks for your feedback.  Specific answers below:

>>> Elton Smith <elton@jlab.org> 02/04/08 9:38 AM >>>

Hi George,

I have gone over the talk you posted. I have a few comments/questions

o Please number slides for ease of reference

The pages are numbered in my original Keynote version.  I now have to
figure out why many pages, but not all, are without numbers in the .pdf
version.  Thanks for alerting me to this.


o The beginning of your talk should briefly talk to the requirements of
the design. It is clear that Alex goes over calorimetry goals from the
physics point of view, but a brief (one-page) summary should be included
to set the goals for bcal specifically.

I wanted to avoid repetition but I can do this in one page.


o Slide on construction Module 2. Note that 13.5 cm are vertical layers
(not length of fibers)

Thanks.  Of course, if anyone thought 13.5 cm was the length, well.....

o Slide on status of module construction. List of expanded clean room,
second press, second swagging machine. These items should be checked as
part of the P3e schedule. See
http://www.jlab.org/Hall-D/gluex_secure/schedule_final_eir-review.pdf

Statements about funding profile should also be reviewed relative to the
baseline schedule.

I don't understand this statement.  I have to present to the Review what
I feel must be done to keep a schedule of construction within hard time
limits.  I know they are part of some schedule but I don't see the
relevance.  In this sense, everything we present to the committee is
part of some chart of planning somewhere.  Can you please clarify what
you mean and what you would like to see?


o Slide Energy resolution results. I assume your statement on 'no
deterioration of resolution for photons closer to one end' refers to
normally incident photons --an unphysical situation for photons from the
target.

True enough, I'll clarify.


o Comparison with KLOE. This focus of this talk is on the final bcal.
Therefore, during this presentation you want to clearly put forth what
we
anticipate for the final design. The prototypes and beam test data
should
be shown and used to extrapolate to the final calorimeter. For example
in
the table 'comparisons with KLOE' you should have the number expected
for
the final detector in addition to the column on what was obtained in the
prototypes. This will help clarify what has been achieved and what we
are
aiming for (if they are different).

Interesting view.  However, and to some extent, I will then project on
performance assuming modifications/improvements we cannot prove that we
will achieve.  For example: Low energy thresholds and photon
reconstruction (four momentum resolution) greatly depend on sampling
fraction for the inner layers, DR and PDE for the SiPM's to name just a
few unknowns.  I can quote, and so stated, that with BCF-20 and SiPM's
we will get greatly increased number of photoelectrons (slide 31).  This
being now the case, the improvements in the quantities above must be put
in the context of what we expect from the SiPM's.  Perhaps this should
be part of Carl's talk but in any case, let's discuss it.

Cheers,

George