From: Mike Shaevitz (shaevitz@nevis.columbia.edu)
Date: Wed Jun 22 2005 - 11:21:46 CDT
Hi Everyone,
We will have a phone conference tomorrow (Thurs. June 23)at 1:30pm cdt
(2:30pm edt)
The main topic will be to go over our response to the NuSag questions.
(See attached files). If you have developed some results or text,
please send it around before the meeting.
To connect to the conference: Dial 1-510-883-7860
and enter 826763 follwed by # sign at the prompt.
Thanks,
Ed and Mike
NuSAG Questions for Braidwood June 21, 2005
1) It seems that the 9Li background is one of the most difficult
ones. KamLAND experience suggests that the probability of 9Li
formation (as well as high multiplicity neutron production) is
much larger for the relatively rare “showering muons” (more that
106 photo-electrons in KamLAND) than for the “standard muons.”
Thus, if one can separate the two classes of muon events, one
can (as in KamLAND) veto the showering ones much longer, thus
reducing the 9Li background substantially. Can this be done in
your detector?
2) Expand on the background expected from 9Li. KAMLAND has a
number but how does it extrapolate with depth (muon energy)?
3) Some data are presented for the variation of absorbance vs.
time for Gd-loaded scintillators. Are data available for
possible deterioration of the scintillation light output of the
scintillator vs. time?
4) As an exercise and to understand the importance of various
overburden patterns, please provide a calculation of the
background for twice as much overburden over the far detector as
was assumed so far. (This is NOT a suggestion to go deeper!)
5) What are the safety considerations related to moving a
detector full of scintillator on the surface?
6) What are the safety considerations relating to (lack of)
escape routes in the shafts?
7) Does the cost quoted for the civil engineering of the shafts
include all safety precautions for personnel working
underground? A similar exercise for a shallower shaft at CERN
was estimated at around $30M for a single shaft.
8) Please provide some information that will indicate the
ruggedness of the engineering to make it possible to move the
detectors between sites. How big are the expected dynamic loads
encountered during movement compared to the static loads that
enter for the normal engineering design?
9) What detector parameters (volume? PMT gain? energy
calibration? other?) must remain constant, and to what level,
when the detectors are moved for this cross-calibration to work?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Fri Jun 24 2005 - 03:10:17 CDT