Emittance Paper Referees Meeting¶
11th April 2018 at 15:00 BST, meeting room will be CR23, or phone:
UK Freephone: 08082380274
US Toll free: 631.621.5253
Caller PIN: 177 933 9517
The outcome of the meeting should be a set of specific actions to create additional plots, tables, etc that the referees feel are required to support the paper.
- Presentation of the MICE Note
- 2018-03-29-Emit-Note.pdf (Blackmore)
"reconstruct the emittance" -> "reconstruct the distribution"
Add a phrase to indicate "not only can we do it, but we get it right"
Para 1: the e+ e- collider will require cooling or <some magic>; so we can be
Para 2: phrasing of "is subsequently accelerated" is a bit mangled; improve wording
Concern: we don't make it clear that where the MC and data disagree, we need to
emphasise that the disagreement does not compromise the method. Response: it is
hard to justify things without just wildly speculating. Agree: Especially in the MICE
note we need to document why we are using a wrong energy beam, what the shortcomings are
and why we think its okay.
Para 3: again "reconstruct emittance" as per abstract
Add a reference to where its done in more detail.
Last para last sentence - needs straightening out
Para 2 just before eqn (1) normalised transverse emittance "is" -> "characterises/approximates"
Scott comments that section 2 is a bit light on detail/motivation.
Reference for diffuser please
The phrasing regarding "the most downstream surface of the scintillating-fibre plane closest to the absorber/focus coil module" is confusing - need to specify the most downstream plane of the upstream tracker. Add a line in Fig. 1?
title: Should be a "transfer line" or "beam line" but definitely not a "beam". Need agreement between Scott and Ken Long.
last para: 700 MeV/c -> MeV
last line: "uniform" -> "effectively uniform"
Mention 700 vs 800 MeV
Second paragraph second line 800 MeV not 800 MeV/c
"simulated using G4Beamline" -> "produced using G4Beamline"
be consistent with ToF vs TOF
Need more discussion of discrepancies between MC and data
Note discrepancy between MC and data; there is no glue in the MC (rather He)
Normalised Time-of-Flight bullet
- Explain that MC vs data TOF01 has a different electron peak
- "normalised" -> "calibrated"
- "1 <= t_n01 <= 6" -> "1 <= t_n01 <= 6 ns". Explain purpose of the cut a bit better
- Add a little more clarity on why there is a "single track reconstructed" cut
- "Events for which... are ascribed to the passage of pions". Reference Table 2.
- Font sizes need to be bigger
- Comment on y-distribution
Section 7.2¶Fig. 8, Fig. 9: add some more text to discuss them
- A bit more interpretation on Fig. 8
- Specify that Fig. 9 justifies the momentum selection
Juggle section 7.2; e.g. the paragraph on statistical uncertainty is a bit "out of nowhere"
Propose put Fig. 13 (emittance) to "start things out" and then explain where the error bars come in
e.g. do the results; then do the statistical and systematic uncertainties
Add a table showing - how much each cut was varied and the resultant change in emittance
Split paragraph 1 into section on "p" and "x, px, y, py". Explicitly state which
line of Table 3 corresponds to which error.
Add a reference to Holger presentation (or equivalent) for the COMSOL model.
Ensure Holger is on the author list of the paper.
last sentence para 1: what is the "known field model"? Explain that we have two
models; COMSOL and MAUS; and be explicit about what we are talking about.
para 3: what does the last sentence mean? Clarify.
para 4: "to the correct the emittance values" -> "to correct the emittance values"
Table 3: why is the +0.08 for 230 MeV/c diffuser so large?
Section 7.4¶Fig. 13: the MC and data do no agree. Is this a problem?
- KL: we will not show MC in the publication.
Explicitly say that the MC disagrees because the generated beam is not right, etc.
Fig. 14: "the residual emittance is approximately flat" -> quote a chi2
Consider removing the 180 MeV/c bin.
Quote the chi2 for Fig. 14
Para 1: dispute the assertion that Fig. 13 MC is flat between 195 and 225
Comment on the rather large emittance uncertainty; how do we square that with the goals of MICE
"mean emittance of" -> "mean value of"
"apertures leading to" -> "aperture upstream of"
Agree: we will meet again with final draft of MICE note and first draft of paper; propose Monday 23rd April for next iteration of the paper.