PREX/CREX Monday, Oct 3, 2016 3:00pm EDT

From PREX Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Back to Main Page >> PREX/CREX_Teleconferences

previous meeting << >> following meeting

Logistic information

 BlueJeans calling instructions:
 Toll-Free Number (U.S.&  Canada):  888-240-2560
 International toll number:         408-740-7256
 PARTICIPANT CODE:                  345647893#
 JLab meeting room: "CC L207"

Agenda

  1. Target chamber design: Bob, Kent
    • CG: LiH target unlikely to be ready for any tests this fall.
    • KP: 1 pass running would not be on anyway (test this in Hall A falls apart). Test in Hall C. CG: will follow up with Mark J (edit: Mark J said the first opportunity for a test would be Fall 2017).
    • Vacuum enclosure design: Kent
    • haplog 3291: att1: at the entrance to the septum .. cut from above just at the bottom shim so there is no iron on the picture. in red are the coils. the green rectangle is magnetic shielding for the septum; the blue tracks are the acceptance of the rays. There is a close intersection between the blue and the red. we have to design a vacuum chamber that misses both. the defining aperture is at Q1 but it seems that we can’t do that right now.
    • Q1: we need to cut our acceptance a bit.
    • KP: once we cut the acceptance upstream how do we know we are clipping here or in Q1 ? SR: the sieve holes should be visible
    • KK: the small angles at y=40 should not matter for our FOM. KP: suggest Tyler re-run with a 10mm cut and see how it will be affected. Tyler: still trying agree with Nickie on the results from the simulation. The two acceptance functions are different by a fixed amount. The FOM was different by a factor of 2. SR: this needs to be fixed, but we should be able to run this relatively.
  2. Ca target contamination and uncertainty on A_{PV} Seamus ErrSlides
    • slide 7: SR: 1% or less of the tgt is now O .. in that case we have 2e-4 correction to asymmetry
    • put upper limit on the O content and since we know the APV => it does not matter
    • KP: relative form factor or rate with a table? SR: if we can get it down to 1 % by scrapping then we are happy with that. we could probably run oxidized if we can determine the APV O to within 20%. They do not vary much because N~= Z. We can be very loose. KP: haplog 3218. the O rate is suppressed because of Z^2 (radius is smaller? . KP: are the form factors here? KK: the ratio of FF takes it further away because you are in the diffraction minimum of the larger nucleus. KP: will add the FF^2 for the rate but not for asym for O
  3. Other business:
    • CP: digital BCMs have been moved downstairs.
    • CP: Tao’s travel schedule? SR: he will be there on the 6th. CP: will meet him there.

Attendance

Ciprian G, Kent P, Caryn P, Paul S, Tyler K, KK, Rakitha B, Seamus R, Dustin M, Bob M,

Excused: