General Meeting Summary 11/25/19

ACTION ITEMS

• Structuring: develop a method to explain the organization strategy and identify examples to illustrate

• Reference material including the detector handbook will be posted by the SC
• Keep updating a list of possible new contributors, see if available/interested to participate
• All think about a cartoon/model of the extended detector/IR region, detector technologies and physics, by next meeting

• General idea: Work towards a comprehensive table/list/diagram of physics requirements and detector technology

• MIT meeting: parallel session organization

• Need a proposed organizational structure at the MIT meeting
• Effective way to identify subconveners

SUMMARY

Organization Structure

• Approach to create a list of possible sub-conveners

• Thoughts about the list:

• Important to be inclusive - the 11/14 SC document lists many who are already active on EIC, it would be good to reach out to others. Silvia already started this process in Italy.
• List should be evolving

• Two approaches to create the list:

• make list of possible subconveners and aim (after the MIT meeting) to identify subconveners and assign the task to come up with additional contributors. In this approach, one would still reach out to people and get them involved, but acknowledges that they may need some ramp up time and could not immediately serve as subconvener.
• make a list of all possible contributors (do not nominate people a priori as subconvener), then the choice of subconveners will be natural, e.g. more senior, more expert

• How to communicate the organization structure

• Start with physics topics, each places constraints on the detector - need to determine the mapping of physics topics onto detector hardware, sometimes clear, sometimes far from clear
• Possible starting point: Detector R&D Handbook and JLEIC web site - contains attempt to map physics topics and requirements onto detector, e.g. physics processes driving requirements on the detector (some may need to be revisited, e.g. 11% energy resolution for EM calorimetry in barrel)
• Start assuming what is known about the requirements, then iterate on the specifics
• In general, have an idea about the detectors (central, forward) - less known about interaction with extended detector/interaction region and possible impact of detector details in far-forward region on beam dynamics --> establish a liaison with ACC at the MIT meeting
• For forward detection status good to check eRD12 reports (eRD12 Final Report) from detector R&D program

• in general, forward detection driven by imaging (e.g. DVCS; the key is the momentum transfer to the nucleon, t, whose coverage has a major impact on the physics), and also tagging (pion, kaon, neutron) and nuclear evaporation product tagging
• note that forward detection in current JLEIC design is essentially 100% - close up to beamline can still detect proton down to 0.2% (10 sigma), 2 mr --> only a small piece cannot be detected. eRHIC design slightly worse, but can be optimized

• technological needs near the beam pipe might be challenging
• Work towards a comprehensive table/list/diagram of physics requirements and detector technology

• Example: angle vs pseudorapidity - angle more natural for detector design
• what detector technology needed where and for what physics
• which physics requirements drive detector technology
• strategy how to move forward/iterate

MIT Meeting Preparations

• Time required for parallel sessions: 3 hours
• working lunch (1 hour) - time with other WG for idea forming and creating a list of physics topics and detector requirements

• feedback between making physics measurement and requirements on detector, which may have to change (check with simulation if one can actually do that)

NEXT MEETING: MONDAY DECEMBER 2 AT 12:00PM - 1:30PM (ET)