Difference between revisions of "Optics Meeting Aug 1 2023 200PM ET"
From Moller Wiki
(Created page with "Back to Main Page >> Optics Meetings >> following meeting >> Optics_Meeting_Jul_25_2023_200PM_...") |
(→Minutes) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
=Agenda= | =Agenda= | ||
| + | # ɸ_target fitting by using the upstream foil for 10 different beam energies (Zuhal): [https://moller.jlab.org/wiki/images/Moller_01Aug23_optics.pdf here] | ||
=Attendance= | =Attendance= | ||
| + | Zuhal, Ryan, Paul, Andrew, Ciprian, Michael, Kate | ||
=Minutes= | =Minutes= | ||
| + | * Note: Vassu has another project for the next couple of weeks, and Kate and Zuhal were busy, so nobody has looked at normalizing parameters as suggested last week. | ||
| + | * Bill was in another meeting today. | ||
| + | * Zuhal: phi reconstruction parameters | ||
| + | ** Overall, these seem better behaved than theta. | ||
| + | ** The 3.5GeV reconstruction had a couple huge outliers that didn't make sense -> large error bars. | ||
| + | ** b_1 stayed close to 1.0, which makes sense because phi_target and phi_gem should be somewhat close to a 1-to-1 comparison. | ||
| + | ** b_5 is HUGE compared to the other parameters, which we can't explain yet. | ||
| + | ** At lower beam energies (first 4 points) we miss some of the low radius holes. | ||
| + | *** Kate: low radius holes are typically placed on the sieve with no local phi offset. Maybe we see fluctuation in these low energy parameters because we are missing the central holes and are being affected by the azimuthal defocusing on the GEMs? | ||
| + | ** Ciprian: Most of the parameters seem constant. What would happen if we fit them to a p_0 fit, and used the new parameters suggested by the p_0 fit in the reconstruction? How do residuals compare? | ||
=Meeting link information= | =Meeting link information= | ||
See email invitation, or contact David Armstrong, Kate Evans or Jennifer McAllister for Zoom link | See email invitation, or contact David Armstrong, Kate Evans or Jennifer McAllister for Zoom link | ||
Latest revision as of 18:19, 1 August 2023
Back to Main Page >> Optics Meetings
Contents
[hide]Agenda
- ɸ_target fitting by using the upstream foil for 10 different beam energies (Zuhal): here
Attendance
Zuhal, Ryan, Paul, Andrew, Ciprian, Michael, Kate
Minutes
- Note: Vassu has another project for the next couple of weeks, and Kate and Zuhal were busy, so nobody has looked at normalizing parameters as suggested last week.
- Bill was in another meeting today.
- Zuhal: phi reconstruction parameters
- Overall, these seem better behaved than theta.
- The 3.5GeV reconstruction had a couple huge outliers that didn't make sense -> large error bars.
- b_1 stayed close to 1.0, which makes sense because phi_target and phi_gem should be somewhat close to a 1-to-1 comparison.
- b_5 is HUGE compared to the other parameters, which we can't explain yet.
- At lower beam energies (first 4 points) we miss some of the low radius holes.
- Kate: low radius holes are typically placed on the sieve with no local phi offset. Maybe we see fluctuation in these low energy parameters because we are missing the central holes and are being affected by the azimuthal defocusing on the GEMs?
- Ciprian: Most of the parameters seem constant. What would happen if we fit them to a p_0 fit, and used the new parameters suggested by the p_0 fit in the reconstruction? How do residuals compare?
Meeting link information
See email invitation, or contact David Armstrong, Kate Evans or Jennifer McAllister for Zoom link
