Difference between revisions of "Optics Meeting May 10 2022 230PM ET"
From Moller Wiki
(→Agenda) |
m (→Minutes) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
#Comparison of blocker material - punch through results (Kate) [https://dilbert.physics.wm.edu/Tracking/49] | #Comparison of blocker material - punch through results (Kate) [https://dilbert.physics.wm.edu/Tracking/49] | ||
#Initial results for sieve theta residuals (Kate) [https://dilbert.physics.wm.edu/Tracking/48] | #Initial results for sieve theta residuals (Kate) [https://dilbert.physics.wm.edu/Tracking/48] | ||
| − | #Optics Matrix Updates (Vassu) [https://moller.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/File: | + | #Optics Matrix Updates (Vassu) [https://moller.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/File:Optics_matrix_update.pdf] |
=Attendance= | =Attendance= | ||
| + | Kate, David, Vassu, Bill, Zuhal, Ciprian, Brynna | ||
=Minutes= | =Minutes= | ||
| + | #Compare pure W to 90% W/10% Cu material for blocker (90 mm thick full annulus). Ciprian's suggestion is to rate-weight in comparisons. Conclusion is that 90/10 blocker is still adequate. Maybe should use a 2 MeV photon energy cut instead of 200 MeV. The showerMax may see significant background from photons that penetrate the blocker (the thin quartz). Maybe a run with 20% thicker W/Cu to match radiation length of pure W? | ||
| + | #Residual plots script: plots seem to make sense, but need to understand vertical axis in residuals vs. GEM radial position - is related to the statistical R^2. Also, should add error bars. | ||
| + | #Evidence of "cutoffs" in selection of holes - do we need to modify selection (in the phi cut) to avoid these cutoffs, to avoid bias in Kate's residuals? What if we are cutting off due to finite GEM size (i.e. we need to allow GEM rotation)? It seems we might be. Discussion of other aspects of Vasu's results postponed to next week. | ||
=Meeting link information= | =Meeting link information= | ||
Latest revision as of 14:59, 12 August 2022
Back to Main Page >> Optics Meetings
Contents
[hide]Agenda
- Comparison of blocker material - punch through results (Kate) [1]
- Initial results for sieve theta residuals (Kate) [2]
- Optics Matrix Updates (Vassu) [3]
Attendance
Kate, David, Vassu, Bill, Zuhal, Ciprian, Brynna
Minutes
- Compare pure W to 90% W/10% Cu material for blocker (90 mm thick full annulus). Ciprian's suggestion is to rate-weight in comparisons. Conclusion is that 90/10 blocker is still adequate. Maybe should use a 2 MeV photon energy cut instead of 200 MeV. The showerMax may see significant background from photons that penetrate the blocker (the thin quartz). Maybe a run with 20% thicker W/Cu to match radiation length of pure W?
- Residual plots script: plots seem to make sense, but need to understand vertical axis in residuals vs. GEM radial position - is related to the statistical R^2. Also, should add error bars.
- Evidence of "cutoffs" in selection of holes - do we need to modify selection (in the phi cut) to avoid these cutoffs, to avoid bias in Kate's residuals? What if we are cutting off due to finite GEM size (i.e. we need to allow GEM rotation)? It seems we might be. Discussion of other aspects of Vasu's results postponed to next week.
Meeting link information
Meeting URL
https://cwm.zoom.us/j/97259755403?pwd=WTRqVHJnZ3RQa1IwNHdMQjJuQm9FZz09
Meeting ID: 972 5975 5403
Passcode: 4937
Return to Optics Meetings
Return to Main Page
