Difference between revisions of "Wednesday, March 30, 10:00 AM EDT"

From Hall A Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 32: Line 32:
 
## Perhaps we need 3 weeks till we can do this next supergroup meeting (week of April 18-22)?
 
## Perhaps we need 3 weeks till we can do this next supergroup meeting (week of April 18-22)?
 
## After that, how does meeting every 3 weeks for the supergroup sound?  Subgroups can meet as they see fit in between time (email exchanges, teleconferences, etc.)
 
## After that, how does meeting every 3 weeks for the supergroup sound?  Subgroups can meet as they see fit in between time (email exchanges, teleconferences, etc.)
 +
 +
<br>
 +
<p>
 +
== Minutes ==
 +
</p>
 +
<b>Participants:</b>  Dave Mack, David Armstrong, Jay Benesch, Dustin McNulty, Paul King, Julie Roche, Nilanga Liyanage, Krishna Kumar,
 +
Abdellah Ahmidouch, Wouter Deconinck, Kent Paschke, Michael Gericke, Sam Danagoulian
 +
<br>
 +
<p>
 +
Minutes prepared by Mark Pitt; these are my best attempt at capturing the variety of ideas and questions brought up on the call. Hopefully this can serve as a reminder list of items that need further discussions in the subgroups.
 +
</p>
 +
# <b>Beam monitoring</b>
 +
#* Mark Pitt and Dave Mack describe the Qweak experience with BCM resolution; best observed so far ~ 90 ppm @ 960 Hz, but sometimes is much larger for as yet unknown reasons; Dave Mack's tests with RF signal generator give ~ 15 ppm; the real beam has more amplitude modulation, though
 +
#* Local oscillator noise: it was pointed out that (in contrast to some systems) each of the BCM's has its own local oscillator
 +
#* KK mentions that the local oscillator noise was a major issue for E158 BCM's; Yury K. is the expert who kept track of that
 +
#* Somebody raised a question about temperature control; (minute taker can't recall the answer, but I know the BCMs in question do have pretty good temperature control/regulation, so this is likely not the cause of the Qweak issues)
 +
#* Sam D's profile monitor [http://www.jlab.org/~pitt/telecon_talks/BeamProfileMonitor.pdf Beam profile monitor document]
 +
# <b>Tracking</b>
 +
#*
 +
# <b>Integrating detectors</b>
 +
#*
 +
# <b>Next meeting</b>
 +
#*
 +
<br>
 +
<p>
 +
Editing of the above minutes is still in progress (April 22)
 +
  
 
<br><br> Return to [[MOLLER at 11 GeV E09-005]]
 
<br><br> Return to [[MOLLER at 11 GeV E09-005]]

Revision as of 06:33, 22 April 2011

Agenda

  1. General goals for this "supergroup" (Mark/KK)
  2. Beam monitoring (Mark)
    1. Background material Beam monitoring info
    2. Beam size monitor with cavities (Mike Woods, SLAC, KK mentioned this)
    3. Beam monitor parasitic development work (KK potentially has graduate student available for this)
    4. Synchrotron radiation - any issues here?
    5. R&D plan needs to focus primarily on charge monitoring - how to proceed? (ie. parasitic work in Hall A or C or both? Qweak may be resistant to changes since things are working at an acceptable level now, but that is not confirmed.)
  3. Tracking (Mark, David A.)
    1. Background: Director's Review Tracking Talk (see slides 4,8,9,10,12) Tracking background info
    2. Background: Initial CAD layout from Dec. 2010 KK talk Tracking CAD info
    3. Background: Small acceptance pion counting detector from Souder Dec. 2010 talk Souder pion detector info
    4. Are we happy with decision to just measure scattered theta and not E'?
    5. Can initial work proceed without further simulations (other than default profiles of the scattered flux at the three z locations in the most current spectrometer design)?
    6. What work needs to be done by summer? (suggestions:)
      1. further "Roman pot" research
      2. finalize decision for "Region 3" technology - straws or GEMs?
      3. Learn more about running GEMs in vacuum (assuming that is default choice for Region 1 and 2)
      4. Number/sizes of detectors in each region
      5. Is this the correct subgroup for Souder's counting mode pion detector?
  4. Integrating detectors (Mark, Michael, Dave M.)
    1. Background: Director's Review Integrating Detectors Talk (see slides 2,3,18,19,27,31) Integrating Detectors info
    2. Background: Initial CAD layout from Dec. 2010 KK talk Detectors CAD info
    3. Can initial work proceed without further simulations (other than default profiles of the scattered flux at the focal plane in the most current spectrometer design)?
    4. Stand-alone GEANT4 light transport simulations for some default radiator/air lightguide combinations will probably be useful.
    5. PMT diameter, Winston cones? (KK can comment)
    6. Pion detector ideas (KK)
    7. Ideas for coupling others into UMass Solidworks CAD design for detector/supports
  5. Next meeting time/goals
    1. Mark Pitt will establish three separate JLAB mailing lists (for beam monitoring, tracking detectors, integrating detectors), since some sub-group discussions may become too detailed for general consumption. This is also a way to self-organize and find out who might be available to contribute.
    2. For next meeting, a good goal would be for each subgroup leader to establish communications with his sub-group via email, prepare a list of goals for mid-summer, determine what tools (CAD, simulation, etc.) are needed to proceed, and have an initial list of volunteers to work on the topics.
    3. Perhaps we need 3 weeks till we can do this next supergroup meeting (week of April 18-22)?
    4. After that, how does meeting every 3 weeks for the supergroup sound? Subgroups can meet as they see fit in between time (email exchanges, teleconferences, etc.)


Minutes

Participants: Dave Mack, David Armstrong, Jay Benesch, Dustin McNulty, Paul King, Julie Roche, Nilanga Liyanage, Krishna Kumar, Abdellah Ahmidouch, Wouter Deconinck, Kent Paschke, Michael Gericke, Sam Danagoulian

Minutes prepared by Mark Pitt; these are my best attempt at capturing the variety of ideas and questions brought up on the call. Hopefully this can serve as a reminder list of items that need further discussions in the subgroups.

  1. Beam monitoring
    • Mark Pitt and Dave Mack describe the Qweak experience with BCM resolution; best observed so far ~ 90 ppm @ 960 Hz, but sometimes is much larger for as yet unknown reasons; Dave Mack's tests with RF signal generator give ~ 15 ppm; the real beam has more amplitude modulation, though
    • Local oscillator noise: it was pointed out that (in contrast to some systems) each of the BCM's has its own local oscillator
    • KK mentions that the local oscillator noise was a major issue for E158 BCM's; Yury K. is the expert who kept track of that
    • Somebody raised a question about temperature control; (minute taker can't recall the answer, but I know the BCMs in question do have pretty good temperature control/regulation, so this is likely not the cause of the Qweak issues)
    • Sam D's profile monitor Beam profile monitor document
  2. Tracking
  3. Integrating detectors
  4. Next meeting


Editing of the above minutes is still in progress (April 22)

Return to MOLLER at 11 GeV E09-005

Retrieved from "https://hallaweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wednesday,_March_30,_10:00_AM_EDT&oldid=10736"