Agenda

results with default vs worst case asymmetric field maps for newest sieve configuration (Kate) [1]

Attendance

Kate, Andrew, Sayak, David, Vassu, Bill, Tyler, Wouter, Paul S.

(Kate) Overall mean differences for both targets show a clear indication that the changes due to the asymmetric field are visible for this sieve hole configuration and for both optics targets. Symmetry pairs 21/41 and 31/61 behaved exactly as expected for both the radial difference and the local phi difference. Symmetry pairs 22/52 and 51/52 did not behave as expected for the local phi difference. The all have rather large error bars. This is likely due to the fact that 22, 51, and 52 are all 6mm holes. Maybe more statistics will help for smaller holes. Should also look at the "slightly asymmetric" B-field, as well as the ideal and the "Worst case" B field
(David) Suggests that we consider this sieve design as "frozen", at least unless simulations group find concerns.
(Bill) Will get the GDML code for the 4-layers of GEM frame to Andrew.

Meeting URL

Meeting ID: 972 5975 5403

Passcode: 4937