Difference between revisions of "Aug 12, 2019"

From Hall A Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
Back to [[Main_Page|Main Page]] >> [[Moller|Moller Page]] >> [[Moller_Meeting_Agendas|Moller Weekly Meeting Index]]  
Back to [[Main_Page|Main Page]] >> [[Moller|Moller Page]] >> [[Moller_Meeting_Agendas|Moller Weekly Meeting Index]]  
[[Aug_19%2C_2019|previous meeting]] <<  >> [[Aug_7%2C_2019|following meeting]]
[[Aug_8%2C_2019|previous meeting]] <<  >> [[Aug_19%2C_2019|following meeting]]

Revision as of 15:28, 12 August 2019

Back to Main Page >> Moller Page >> Moller Weekly Meeting Index

previous meeting << >> following meeting

Moller DocDB

Original Moller Polarimeter Page

Moller ELog


Recent results discussion: Eric, Paul

Systematics Discussion: Don [1], Simona [2]

Connection details:

Meeting URL https://bluejeans.com/388466836

Meeting ID 388 466 836

US toll free phone 1.888.240.2560

Dial in, type in the meeting ID and then press ##

Minutes: Paul started the discussion with results of the previous weekend. Conclusions:

  • We are highly sensitive to the orbit of the beam coming into the solenoid. During our last run on Aug 4, our rates were very low compared to expectation presumably due to misalignment
  • One of the correctors previously used in the Moller lock was just upstream of the Moller target and appears to have been sending high angle (~2 mrad) beam into the solenoid. This has been rectified with a new lock using upstream correctors. Presumably this will result in a much more repeatable setup.
  • Simulation indicates that Azz is largely insensitive to these alignment issues (phew!)
  • Data taken over the weekend matches expectation from simulation very well showing that we are close to a large Levchuk correction (>1%) but if we overtune Q1 from its rate peak we are located in a flat region of Azz with minimal Levchuk correction and sensitivity.

Slides were shown from Don and Simona discussing future systematic studies including target quality and saturation studies, deadtime studies, and a magnetic field reversal. We discussed the interpretive issues surrounding both the saturation test and a field reversal. While no definite conclusions were reached, there seemed to be a consensus that we should do a saturation test, although the exact structure and scope is not yet clear. Further discussion is required before committing to a field reversal. Perhaps more information on solenoid alignment will help inform the decision.