Difference between revisions of "PREX/CREX Feb 9 2017 1:00pm EDT"
From PREX Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchCiprian Gal (talk | contribs) |
Ciprian Gal (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Back to [[Main_Page|Main Page]] >> [[PREX/CREX_Teleconferences]] | Back to [[Main_Page|Main Page]] >> [[PREX/CREX_Teleconferences]] | ||
− | [[PREX/CREX_Feb_2_2017_1:00pm_EDT|previous meeting]] << >> [[PREX/ | + | [[PREX/CREX_Feb_2_2017_1:00pm_EDT|previous meeting]] << >> [[PREX/CREX_Feb_16_2017_1:00pm_EDT|following meeting]] |
Latest revision as of 12:10, 16 February 2017
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: 913380354# Room IRL: CEBAF F227
Agenda
- calcium testing at Manitoba: Juliette HAPLOG 3630
- JM: trying to make sample pieces of Ca in order to do studies.
- JM: working with chemist. Ca reacts with the quartz event without direct contact and the Ta boat has a white powder on it.
- JM: remove oxidation until we reach shiny layer. SR: the 8% should be nuclear fraction and we could live with that.
- JM: we could order a rod. clumps were only few $hundred. would expect it to be more expensive because we want minimal oxidation.
- KP: we would like to know what kind of things grow on it. secondly we would like to know if it goes within the bulk. can we see the difference between different levels of oxidation?
- JM: 3rd option is to distill. the point is that is boils the Ca but does not evaporate it. it will release the other elements (like O). the chemist’s opinion is that we should not expect C or N to be in the oxidized sample (should be mainly oxides and hydroxides).
- SC: the target is described in the last collaboration meeting talk by Kent
- JM: we estimate about 15% loss in thickness (from wet Ar atmosphere).
- SR: compare halog 3111 and 3106 you can see the batch numbers are not the same. KP: will talk to Meekins about it
- JM: will try to go with option 2.
- BCM studies: Tao
- TY: will present later
- Acceptance defining apperture new design: [1]
- TK: new concept for a collimator aperture that can used in PREX 2. RM: the basic concept for the collimator was that it was defining the maximum acceptance, while minimizing other contributions
- TK: 9.35cm height is due to the extra shims in the septum
- TK: inner and outer edge are defined by concentric circles.
- TK: tuning of the inner circle has to be done in order to get the <Q2> be the same as for a 5deg ray.
- RM: keep in mind that there are alignment tolerances .. you may want to have a 1mm tolerance (cut 1mm smaller) on the edges. KP: will keep in mind both the assembly tolerance and the defining acceptance tolerance
- KK: what beam energy are we going to use for the tweaks. TK: 1.063 GeV PREX 1 beam energy RM: what tolerance on the energy are we going to have? (50MeV?)
- JM: will rounded corners matter? KP: probably is not that important.
Attendance
Kent P, Caryn P, Ciprian G, Julliette M, Guido U, Tyler K, Seamus R, Tao Y, Silviu C, Dustin M, Julliette M, Bob M, Krishna K, Paul Sauder