Difference between revisions of "Optics Meeting May 3 2022 230PM ET"
From Moller Wiki
(Created page with "Back to Main Page >> Optics Meetings >> following meeting >> Optics_Meeting_Apr_26_2022_230PM...") |
m (→Minutes) |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
=Agenda= | =Agenda= | ||
| + | # Low-energy gamma and x-ray flux estimates at the GEMs (David/Kate/Bill): [http://physics.wm.edu/~armd/GEM_flux_2.pdf] | ||
| + | # Optics Map Update (Vassu): [https://moller.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/File:Optics_Work_Flow.pdf] | ||
=Attendance= | =Attendance= | ||
| + | Bill, Kate, David, Zuhal, Vassu, Klaus, Chandan | ||
=Minutes= | =Minutes= | ||
| + | #With the Livermore low-energy physics list, we don't seem to see a huge flux of x-rays or low-energy gammas at the GEM plane. At worst, the singles rates from these x-rays would be about the same as the "true" rate of Moller and ep electrons, i.e. would not cause any problem with our tracking analysis or any gain-sagging in the GEMs. Should double-check that we have properly run this G4 simulation by simply repeating with the low-energy list disabled, i.e. going back to the defaults. PREx-II had very little evidence of a singles background (according to Chandan), however HRS is a highly shielded environment. The recent SBS GM_n experiment had a huge flux of low-energy x-rays - but rather than our "two-bounce design", they essentially have line-of-sight from their traget to the GEMs in BigBite, so a very different situation. | ||
=Meeting link information= | =Meeting link information= | ||
Latest revision as of 14:56, 11 May 2022
Back to Main Page >> Optics Meetings
Contents
[hide]Agenda
- Low-energy gamma and x-ray flux estimates at the GEMs (David/Kate/Bill): [1]
- Optics Map Update (Vassu): [2]
Attendance
Bill, Kate, David, Zuhal, Vassu, Klaus, Chandan
Minutes
- With the Livermore low-energy physics list, we don't seem to see a huge flux of x-rays or low-energy gammas at the GEM plane. At worst, the singles rates from these x-rays would be about the same as the "true" rate of Moller and ep electrons, i.e. would not cause any problem with our tracking analysis or any gain-sagging in the GEMs. Should double-check that we have properly run this G4 simulation by simply repeating with the low-energy list disabled, i.e. going back to the defaults. PREx-II had very little evidence of a singles background (according to Chandan), however HRS is a highly shielded environment. The recent SBS GM_n experiment had a huge flux of low-energy x-rays - but rather than our "two-bounce design", they essentially have line-of-sight from their traget to the GEMs in BigBite, so a very different situation.
Meeting link information
Meeting ID 970 3027 1000
Meeting URL
https://umass-amherst.zoom.us/j/97030271000
Return to Optics Meetings
Return to Main Page
