Difference between revisions of "PREX/CREX May 30, 2018 10:00am"
From PREX Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchCiprian Gal (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Back to Main Page >> PREX/CREX_Teleconferences previous meeting << >> PREX/CREX_Jun_6,_2018_10:00am|following meetin...") |
(→Agenda) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
== Agenda == | == Agenda == | ||
| − | # Cameron - SAM | + | # Cameron - [[:media:Cameron_Prex_meeting_5-30-2018.pdf|SAM geometry number results]], and [https://ace.phys.virginia.edu:80/HAPPEX/3506 stored on haplog 4506] and on [https://prex.jlab.org/cgi-bin/DocDB/private/ShowDocument?docid=154 docDB id 154] |
| − | #* | + | #* CC: the simulation CC is running is consistent with what CG had before |
| − | # Adam - New Collimator Shield Sims | + | #* CC: moving SAMs out helps a lot. |
| − | #* | + | #* CC: the thickens of the quartz was changed as well DM: 60 mm thick quartz would be something we could try |
| + | #* CC: changing the thickness of the Al can also shows the improvement | ||
| + | #* CG: you should compare to the noSAMs configuration | ||
| + | #* DM: the 150um seems to be half of the thickness; it should be 1.651 mm. CC: my labels were wrong by a factor of 10. Has fixed and updated slides. | ||
| + | #* CC: will run more simulations and use 1.651 mm aluminum can thickness as baseline for those studies (but 1.5mm is the baseline that was used for prior SAM studies, so this will need to be committed to the full github repository soon, or the results from this study will need to update the engineering results, so one or both will change soon) | ||
| + | # Adam - New Collimator Shield Sims [https://ace.phys.virginia.edu:80/HAPPEX/3507 elog entry] | ||
| + | #* AZ: looking at whether we should borate the plastic or concrete around the collimator | ||
| + | #* AZ: these are basically rates normalized to the detector areas. | ||
| + | #* AZ: each row has the lowest value highlighted. | ||
| + | #* CG: for this specific study a look at the flux alone (with error bars) would be very useful. Compare these (through ratios) to the v3 geometry. | ||
== Attendance == | == Attendance == | ||
| − | + | Ciprian G, Cameron C, Adam Z, Tyler K, Eric K, Jinlong Z, Ryan R, Silviu D, Devi A, Victoria O, Caryn P, Tao Y, Dustin M, Bob M, Cameron C, Chandan G, | |
=== Excused: === | === Excused: === | ||
Kent P, | Kent P, | ||
Latest revision as of 22:43, 30 May 2018
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 Bluejeans CODE: 627 455 790 Bluejeans link: https://bluejeans.com/627455790 Offline room: CEBAF Center L210A
Agenda
- Cameron - SAM geometry number results, and stored on haplog 4506 and on docDB id 154
- CC: the simulation CC is running is consistent with what CG had before
- CC: moving SAMs out helps a lot.
- CC: the thickens of the quartz was changed as well DM: 60 mm thick quartz would be something we could try
- CC: changing the thickness of the Al can also shows the improvement
- CG: you should compare to the noSAMs configuration
- DM: the 150um seems to be half of the thickness; it should be 1.651 mm. CC: my labels were wrong by a factor of 10. Has fixed and updated slides.
- CC: will run more simulations and use 1.651 mm aluminum can thickness as baseline for those studies (but 1.5mm is the baseline that was used for prior SAM studies, so this will need to be committed to the full github repository soon, or the results from this study will need to update the engineering results, so one or both will change soon)
- Adam - New Collimator Shield Sims elog entry
- AZ: looking at whether we should borate the plastic or concrete around the collimator
- AZ: these are basically rates normalized to the detector areas.
- AZ: each row has the lowest value highlighted.
- CG: for this specific study a look at the flux alone (with error bars) would be very useful. Compare these (through ratios) to the v3 geometry.
Attendance
Ciprian G, Cameron C, Adam Z, Tyler K, Eric K, Jinlong Z, Ryan R, Silviu D, Devi A, Victoria O, Caryn P, Tao Y, Dustin M, Bob M, Cameron C, Chandan G,
Excused:
Kent P,
