From: Hahn, Richard (rhahn@bnl.gov)
Date: Tue May 09 2006 - 08:59:26 CDT
In preparation for today's phone call, just to be sure that I understand
the 3 options, I summarize my reading of the original last paragraph
that Ed just sent out and the 2 replacement options from Mike.
AM I CORRECT IN MY INTERPRETATION?
The original says that DOE should allow both Braidwood and Daya Bay to
have technical reviews before the final funding decision is made. No
mention is made of Double Chooz.
Options 1 and 2 below essentially throw in the towel for Braidwood,
omitting any reference to future decisions about Braidwood. The options
say that either Daya Bay (option 2) or Double Chooz and Daya Bay (option
1) will or should go forward, with Braidwood scientists providing only
assessments and reviews.
Regards,
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Shaevitz [mailto:shaevitz@nevis.columbia.edu]
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 5:45 PM
To: Braidwood Collaboration
Subject: Letter to Staffin
Dear Colleagues,
A discussion of the letter to Staffin is scheduled at our
phone meeting tomorrow. There are questions of sending the
letter, modifying it, or having several of us meet with
Staffin in person.
One question is whether the last paragraph of the current
draft is what we want to put forward now. The two optional
paragraphs below are ones where we try to take the "high
road" with respect to US participation in the theta13
measurement.
Please think about all this and we can discuss things tomorrow.
Mike
Option 1:
Of course, our common goal is to make the needed scientific
measurements that will elucidate the physics of neutrino
masses and mixings. A program including the Double Chooz
experiment and an improved Daya Bay experiment would seem to
be a wise path. The Double Chooz experiment, which will use
a detector very similar to Daya Bay, will be able to
quantify the possible deficiencies and backgrounds
associated with this type of measurement, and, thus, provide
information for improving the Daya Bay experiment. We also
believe that the experience and expertise of the members of
the Braidwood collaboration could be very valuable to the
DOE for technical reviews and assessments towards improving
the Daya Bay experiment. In these ways, we hope that the US
particle and nuclear physics community can play an important
part in completing a precision reactor disappearance
measurement.
Option 2:
Of course, our common goal is to make the needed scientific
measurements that will elucidate the physics of neutrino
masses and mixings. We believe that the experience and
expertise of the members of the Braidwood collaboration
could be very valuable to the DOE for technical reviews and
assessments towards improving the Daya Bay experiment. In
these ways, we hope that the US particle and nuclear physics
community can play an important part in completing a
precision reactor disappearance measurement.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Wed May 10 2006 - 03:10:15 CDT