Difference between revisions of "20211027-Optics-Mtg"

From PREX Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "Back to Main Page >> HRS_Optics_Mtg previous meeting << >> following meeting == Logistic information ==...")
 
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
  
[[20210929-Optics-Mtg|previous meeting]] <<  >> [[20211110-Optics-Mtg|following meeting]]
+
[[20210929-Optics-Mtg|previous meeting]] <<  >> [[20211103-Optics-Mtg|following meeting]]
  
 
== Logistic information ==
 
== Logistic information ==
Line 13: Line 13:
 
== Agenda ==
 
== Agenda ==
 
# CREX completion
 
# CREX completion
# PREX status
+
#* We need to select new "matching" conditions, calculate new acceptance function,for the corrected calibration. This was done ad hoc for the CREX unblinding. We should complete the calculation of the acceptance function.
 +
#* We already have CREX optics databases calculated for a variety of beam positions. I would like to better check our uncertainty in the beam position extrapolation by comparing results between the simulation and the reconstructed data using the various optics dbs.
 +
#* we should be finding similar results between PREX and CREX, so we should more carefully compare the left and right models between the two experiments.
 +
#* We should try to put in a realistic model for a rotation of the Q1 collimator.  This may be a non-trivial effect, and might even be suggested by the shape of the acceptance.
 +
# PREX completion:
 +
#* We didn’t account for this extrapolation problem for PREX. To do this, we need various optics dbs optimized for calibrations runs at various bpm positions, like we have for CREX. I'll talk to Siyu about what we have, and what we need. 
 +
#* meanwhile, we should try to start by assuming a similar "optics residual" to CREX (ie. half milliradian per mm horizontal offset from db center) and see how big an effect this is. Initially indications from Bob's HrsTrkCorr were that the correction was significant, but there were also extrapolation issues with that approach.
  
 
== Minutes ==
 
== Minutes ==
  
 
== Attendence ==
 
== Attendence ==
 +
Weibin, Cip, Kent

Latest revision as of 09:39, 3 November 2021

Back to Main Page >> HRS_Optics_Mtg


previous meeting << >> following meeting

Logistic information

 Time: 1-2pm EST
 Toll-Free Number (U.S.&  Canada):  888-240-2560
 PARTICIPANT CODE:                  # 983 216 220
 Room IRL:                            <none>
 https://bluejeans.com/983216220

Agenda

  1. CREX completion
    • We need to select new "matching" conditions, calculate new acceptance function,for the corrected calibration. This was done ad hoc for the CREX unblinding. We should complete the calculation of the acceptance function.
    • We already have CREX optics databases calculated for a variety of beam positions. I would like to better check our uncertainty in the beam position extrapolation by comparing results between the simulation and the reconstructed data using the various optics dbs.
    • we should be finding similar results between PREX and CREX, so we should more carefully compare the left and right models between the two experiments.
    • We should try to put in a realistic model for a rotation of the Q1 collimator. This may be a non-trivial effect, and might even be suggested by the shape of the acceptance.
  2. PREX completion:
    • We didn’t account for this extrapolation problem for PREX. To do this, we need various optics dbs optimized for calibrations runs at various bpm positions, like we have for CREX. I'll talk to Siyu about what we have, and what we need.
    • meanwhile, we should try to start by assuming a similar "optics residual" to CREX (ie. half milliradian per mm horizontal offset from db center) and see how big an effect this is. Initially indications from Bob's HrsTrkCorr were that the correction was significant, but there were also extrapolation issues with that approach.

Minutes

Attendence

Weibin, Cip, Kent