Re: Sensitivity for the Baseline

Hi Steve,

I can look into this further, but to first order we practically have
what we need to answer your question. Three years with 260 tons is the
same as 6 years with 130 tons. I sent out the numbers for 5 years with
130 tons. The extra 1/6 of data can't make that much of a difference.
The main difference is that we still had near detectors. I suspect that
the shape sensitivity will depend on a near far comparison. In your
scenario, will we be using the two year average, near shape to compare
to the far shape? Unfortunately, our sensitivity code is not equipped
to evaluate the consequences of that scenario. I would say propose the
same thing as you except that we would move the second near detector
back and build one or more new far detectors. In this case we will
still need somewhere to put them. The added cost of a second two
detector room at the far side is $2.7M unloaded. Veto systems and
detectors are not included.

-Jon

Steven Biller wrote:

> Ok, here's an interesting scenario:
> We run in the default configuration for
> 2 years, at which point (according to John's
> numbers) rate and spectrum measurements
> will be comparable and we'll start running
> into the wall as far as what can be done
> with pure rate. Hopefully, we'll also have
> obtained enough data for thetaW. What if we
> don't see anything much? ==> Pull back ALL
> 4 detectors to the far location and crank
> away for another 3 years. I fully appreciate
> that there are systematics with spectrum that
> would really need to be looked at but, in
> principle, how well could we do?? I'd imagine
> much better than anyone else... this may be
> a VERY attractive option to flog since, in
> the absence of a detection, we'd be the only
> show in town! The practical consequences of
> this for the shorter term are that, perhaps,
> we should plan 4 rooms at the far site as
> part of the baseline. Jon - it'd be fun to
> see those 'in-principle' numbers for the
> equivalent of 16 detector module-years at
> the far site... is that easy to knock off?
>
> - Steve
>
Received on Thu Sep 9 13:38:49 2004