October 25, 2002

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Recorded by J. Nelson and T. Hallman

Present:

T. Hallman (Chair) J.Dunlop, S.Vigdor, W.Christie, G.Eppley, J.Nelson, T. Ludlam, J. Lauret, P.Jacobs, R. Brown, J.Thomas Video Link:

J.Marx, H-G. Ritter, H.Wieman Phone Link:

R. Bellwied, M.Kaplan, C. Whitten

1. Minutes of the previous meeting were reviewed and it was confirmed that those items which required actions, had been concluded.
2. ITTF: R. Bellwied presented the report of the September Review Committee. However, the recommendation of the Committee was that the ITTF should be deployed as soon as possible. The ITTF was not yet ready for deployment and further work is urgently required if the tracker is to be reviewed in December for use in January. If it is not ready for January, then a slippage of 6 months is inevitable. R. Bellwied considered that the use of ITTF for AuAu in year 4 was an absolute necessity. There is both a short- and long- term problem. In the short term, there is an immediate need to retain the present team until the end of December. An additional FTE on the project as soon as possible would be a strong signal that the ITTF is getting active support.

   Advice: it was agreed that the spokesman should consult the groups from Yale, Kent State, Wayne State, and BNL with a view to encouraging the current team to continue. The Spokesperson should also approach the collaboration for extra manpower.

   In the longer term, the use of ITTF as STAR's principal tracker requires a commitment either from a national laboratory (for continuity) and/or a consortium of Universities to provide support.

   Concern was expressed about a changeover in January. It is important to run the old and new in parallel in order to establish that bias was not being introduced in the analysis.

   The report of the Review Committee was accepted.

    

3. FPD: L. Bland introduced simulations to investigate background in the Au beam direction that had been carried out following the previous Advisory Board meeting. These showed reconstruction of the pizero mass in the Au direction. There is a clear indication of signal but more work is necessary. In reply to a question, TH reported that funding for the FPD could be obtained in principle from BNL capital funds. The overall list of capital equipment needs will come to the Advisory Board for prioritization.

   The report of the FPD Review Committee was approved.

    

4. Resource priorities for FPD, PMD and EEC. R. Brown's paper showing tasks in hand and those without allocated resources, was introduced. The baseline detector was defined as Magnet, TPC, FTPC, CTB, TOFp,BEMC, BBC, SVT, DAQ and TRG. The outer layer of the BBC was dependent on certain priorities being set for production at Fermi Lab.

   PMD: T.Nayak presented a scenario in which the PMD would be mainly checked out as an engineering run. It was not anticipated that it would be used in dedicated physics run.

   EEMC: S. Vigdor: the tower readout will be ready for trigger this year. This would largely be an engineering run so that by the time of the pp run it would be ready for high pt physics. It provides a much improved acceptance. A requirement would be that the pole-tip remains out for as long as possible. This means a late mounting for the BBC.

   FPD: L. Bland: Pizero spectra would be obtained from E and W sides. In the pp run, it would be used for vertical polarization measurements and, importantly, to tune the spin rotation magnets. The present plan is to instrument the complete FPD on the east side, plus single (N or S) calorimeter on west side.

   It was agreed that the priority for resources available beyond those to ready the baseline from R. Brown would be: FPD, EEC and PMD in that order.

   Funding of the FPD would be sought from capital equipment funds which STAR may have at its discretion.

    

5. R&D proposal and Upgrades Discussion: T. Ludlam introduced a discussion on the STAR Upgrades proposal for FY2003 to FY2005. This sets a picture for STAR's future: TOF, �VTX, Daq+Trg, new TPC. Is this the way forward? If luminosity increased as planned eventually a new TPC will be required. Priorities will have to be set once it is known what level of funds will be available. There may be some projects for which the R&D can be jointly undertaken with other experiments.

   It is important to ready the physics case for the upgrade of STAR/RHIC to be ready for the 19/20 December meeting so that BNL and DOE management are properly informed about what is being planned. T. Hallman was asked to present update the Advisory Boatd on progress in this area in 2-3 weeks.

   A STAR R&D proposal based on technical considerations has already been submitted. A corresponding physics supplement is urgently required.

    

6. EMC: T. Ludlam presented a summary of the recent EMC review. The full half barrel is in place and should be ready for the run. There is, however, a problem with PM readout where half of the tubes showed a gain instability leading to double peaks. This was due to a problem with the PMT bases. The problem bases have been replaced but there is concern the remaining half might develop the same symptoms. Further investigation is needed.

   Outcome of the review: the goal is to have all modules completed in FY04. A funding advance will be needed to forward fund some work earlier in FY03 to accomplish this. The review went well in general.

    

7. General:
   1. agreed to request one some type of regularly scheduled Maintenance Shift per week; the proposal being considered by the four collaborations is 1 shift per week through December, and 1 shift every two weeks for the period of the run following December.

       

   2. release of data: based on the conclusions from the convenors' meeting, it was agreed that if STAR data appearing in published conference proceedings were requested by non-STAR physicists, the standard procedure would be to honor the request and release the data. People making such request would be asked to maintain the "STAR preliminary data" designation if the data were so designated in the proceedings.

       

   Advice: T. Hallman was requested to contact PRL concerning STAR preliminary data being published by a non-STAR physicist. Would this prejudice against future publication of this data in PRL by STAR?

    

8. MRPC TOF update: J.Marx requested information on improvements to the report as requested by the July meeting of the Advisory Board. Since the latest report has not yet been released, T. Hallman presented a brief outline. The case for full acceptance rests mainly on ExE correlations. The Board considered that a stronger case is required with a broader physics base. The views of theorists should be in incorporated into the report. The funding requirement is quite substantial and a broad physics case is needed for successful approval.

    

9. Shifts: It was agreed that 4 people will constitute a single shift crew and that a full sign-up of shifts will be required as soon as shift list is opened.

    

10. It was agreed that an attempt would be made to schedule major STAR meetings (Analysis meeting, Collaboration meetings) as far in advance as possible.