Meeting 25 March 2011

Added by Tunnell, Christopher about 11 years ago

The agenda should be as follows -- please let me know if something is missing.
  • review of actions and matters arising (Chris and Alain)
  • Matters arising from TB (Andy sent TB minutes-- enclosed)
  • Matters arising from VC
  • cost and schedule review status
  • Marco's departure, and who will replace him for beamline?
  • agenda of meeting in July (Oxford) (John Cobb)
  • Common fund (Ken Long)
  • Editorial board (Maurizio)
  • Speakers board (Vittorio)
  • A.o.B.


Added by Tunnell, Christopher about 11 years ago

Here is version two with suggestions and corrections incorporated from Zisman:

  • Alain Blondel
  • Mike Zisman
  • John Cobb
  • Daniel Kaplan
  • Chris Tunnell
  • Vittorio Palladino
  • Maurizio Bonesini
Not present with apologies:
  • David Colling
  • Andy Nichols
Late arrivals:
  • Ken Long
  • Alan Bross

Previous minutes and actions

TB website


Solid absorbers

Blondel says Pavel Snopok is now heading this effort, but Cobb hadn't heard this. Blondel will forward an email from Snopok to Cobb to allow Cobb and his student (Tim Carlisle) to get involved. Cobb, after receiving the email, says that the meeting appears to be mainly about the mechanics. Cobb may be less interested.

ACTION: Assigned to Cobb with information coming from Snopok

Magnetic Measurement Plan

No progress.

Zisman wonders how we converge since it's nearly April and we may have a focus coil in the summer. Cobb has a slide on what to do with the measurements, but there are two questions: 'who' does 'what' with it?

Suggest to Felix Bergsma and Pierrick Hanlet to get involved then present something at analysis meeting (or some special meeting). Maybe the magnet group is interested?

ACTION: Cobb to organize a meeting of interested people


STFC still to reply with comments on the MOU. But Long has been asked about it: "is this an agreement between MICE groups or between MICE and STFC?"

MOUs are not legal documents. Blondel says that the history of MOUs is that institutions would disagree then get CERN involved; MOUs are a way of settling such issues.

On MICE, as Long states, the MOU is just dividing up responsibilities and if you ask STFC to get involved they'll make it a legal document. But MICE isn't a legal entity. Even though Kaplan says that Fermilab signs MOUs, RAL is different since it's part of STFC. There are two STFC roles: it's the 1) host lab but also a 2) funding body. Blondel says that STFC shouldn't be signing this but rather just the UK MICE group since this MOU is an agreement between collaborators.

Long proposes (and nobody objects) that we change the title to make it clear that it is an agreement solely within MICE so as to not scare the STFC.

Integration Physicist

Long says that we should discuss what was written and see if that is currently filled by somebody else.

ACTION: Long (and Blondel) to follow up and write a job description from Linda Coney's proposal

Step 3 v 4 document

Cobb says that Tim Carlisle is making progress on drafting a note on the accelerator side of things.

Mechanism for approving plots

In progress.

MICE mailing list

Blondel is starting to do this and should be done with it this weekend.

ACTION UPDATED: Blondel's work should mean this is closed by the next EB

Prepare a program of RF cavity tests

ACTION UPDATED: Set it on Zisman.

Highest impact factor journal

Kaplan shows Thompson impact factors. We are mainly considering some of the lower impact factor journals since these are the ones that target our audience. PRSTAB, NIMA, and JINST all have roughly the same impact factor. JINST is edited by a CERN guy, says Blondel, and was born at end of LEP. Zisman says mainly LHC people publish in JINST.

Who's the audience? Both accelerator and particle physicists.

Blondel says we aren't the first muon beamline and what we have done is measured accelerator physics quantities particle by particle. Blondel says that this choice isn't exceedingly critical: JINST, PRST, and NIMA are the three choices and the biggest impact factor is JINST.

Zisman says that we shouldn't argue per paper, but our time average should be split between US and European journals.

People agree on JINST for the moment unless there is new information.

ACTION CLOSED: work done

MICE website move

In progress.

NEW ACTION: David Colling to send an update on the status of the website move


NEW ACTION: Blondel to find out if Coney wants the Online Group head

Schedule review in preparation for the MPB and FAC

Referees have been identified. Zisman worried that too many external reviewers will mean that it gets out of hand. Bross and Zisman want one or two reviewers since if it's too many you'll get too long of a list of minor stuff to do. Blondel will ask Nichols about reviewers and bring up these issues. Zisman: "who is the group advising? Us."

Common fund

Long: "Alan has closed the list. Marry Elizabeth will raise the invoices. No close out on the spend till February."

Long left @ 15:44.

TB minutes

There is a safety issue related to the neutral links that damaged our control room and this was marked as a 'near miss'.

Is the helium window actually 5 mm? Cobb says that this (and even 500 um) is too thick. Cobb wrote a note on this. Cobb says that the AFC working group dealt with this.

ACTION: Cobb to send an email to TB and Jeff Barber about this thickness. And ask somebody for a cartoon-style diagram with the helium window and pressures indicated.

Matters from VC

Dry run to test online reconstruction.

Cost and schedule

Discussed previously

Marco Apollonio's departure

Discussed before the secretary arrived.

Agenda of Oxford July meeting

Accommodation booked. No agenda since it's too early. People seem to want a nice college dinner.

Editorial board

Preparation for PAC 2011. We should try to get the writeups done earlier. There's also an issue that we need a step 1 paper.

Cobb met with Marco Apollonio and Mark Rayner: the team for the first paper is trying to get a systematic error on the momentum measurements. Mark compared his analysis to Marco's simulation at three different momenta of one sign (need other sign). The agreement looked remarkably good. There's a potential disagreement in 'x' at one of the TOFs. Need to agree on a set of phase space plots. There are figures Marco made that may not be easy to reproduce.

Editorial board discussion about software for first paper

Zisman and Kaplan bring up the issue that the current code being used to make plots for the first paper is not in CVS nor can be reproduced by other people.

Blondel summarizes the ensuing discussion: "We try to put out this paper. The software group then goes through the whole process of trying to improve Mark's code so everybody can use it. These are two efforts in parallel. These should try to converge in end of April or early May."

Speakers board

Zisman noted that 5 of 16 abstracts were withdrawn. Vittorio says we need to prepare for IPAC. Yagmur Torun created a repository where we can put things.

Nufact registration open.

Blondel and Speakers board must know about abstracts submitted to conferences.