PREX/CREX Aug 22, 2018 10:00am

From PREX Wiki
Revision as of 14:47, 23 August 2018 by Ciprian Gal (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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
 Bluejeans CODE:                  627 455 790
 Bluejeans link:
 Offline room:   CEBAF Center L210A


  1. Sieves:
    • KP: they have what they need and the design is moving forward. Joyce sent us pictures for the collimator mounting which I put into the elog. I am a little concerned about the mounting and will go through this with Joyce. KK: how we will know if it’s in our out? KP: there will be some stops for the in position, we will double check for the out.
    • KK: we should calculate the inefficiency for taking a Q2 measurement one or two weeks into the run. KP: will take a look
    • BM: do the holes cover the entire acceptance? KP: we still have to evaluate that since right now it looks like the mounting interferes.
  2. Other:
    • KP: details for the sky shine are complete and the vendor has made a visit to the lab for the dump shielding
    • CG: no run in early sept before the new tritium target comes in
  3. Polarimetry:
    • DG: Compton: last couple of the weeks we discovered that shape of the laser was odd and we inspected the fiber amplifier. It looked nice and when we re- installed it looked great (M2 was fine). Maybe it was an odd alignment problem. On the basis of those measurements we expected to have about 70% coupling. We ordered a new lens to improve the coupling and we are working on it.
    • KP: there is a lot of activity on the Moller polarimetry. We are working to understand where we are intercepting beam. We are focusing on the dipole vacuum box. It is interesting to note that the actual wall of the vacuum box is not documented at all (the G3 geometry is not consistent with documentation or hand drawn documentation). Eugene and Sasha think the G3 geometry is correct.


Dave G, Amali P, Ciprian G, Kent P, Adam Z, Bob M, Chandan G, Dustin M, Eric K, Ryan R, Ye Tian, Victoria O, Tyler K, Tao Y, Devi A, KK, Jinlong Z, Guido U, Cameron C, Caryn P,


Silviu C,