Dear EB,

Minutes from previous meeting below or at link: http://micewww.pp.rl.ac.uk/news/23

Actions within minutes or at:

http://micewww.pp.rl.ac.uk/projects/mice-eb/issues

Cheers,
Chris

Present:

• Alain Blondel
• Daniel Kaplan
• Christopher Tunnell
• Maurizio Bonesini (hour late)
• Vittorio Palladino (hour late)
• Ken Long
• David Colling

Agenda:

• minutes of last meeting and review of actions
• matters arising from TB and solenoid workshop (Nichols)

• MICE schedule review status (Andy Nichols)

• MICE running and MOM modifications :Roumen Tsenov asks to be replaced and proposes Galina see below
• matters arising from VC (all)
• MICE Paper I report (see below)
• Editorial board (Maurizio)

*update of MICE note 95 including analysis of data (Alain will circulate proposal independently)

• agenda of meeting in July (Oxford) (John Cobb)
• Common fund (Ken Long)

*In absence of Mike Zisman we can have a brief discussion on the common fund proposal

• Speakers board (Vittorio)
• A.o.B.

WARNING: THERE WERE PHONE QUALITY PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED BY VARIOUS MEMBERS OF EB

Previous minutes and actions¶

TB website¶

ACTION on Nichols still pending.

Magnetic measurement plan¶

ACTION UPDATE: Cobb's organizing of a meeting of interested people still pending
ACTION UPDATE: Blondel still to discuss with Cobb the manpower issue.

MOU¶

We will make the MOU look more like T2K.

ACTION Update: Blondel to communicate more with Charlotte

Integration physicist¶

Blondel will discuss with Coney Monday. Also Coney may take on online group head.

ACTION update: Blondel to report on discussion with Coney.

Step 3 v 4¶

ACTION update: Cobb and Carlisle paper pending but progress.
ACTION update: Nichols and Hayler short paragraph pending.

Mechanism for approving plots¶

Discuss later in meeting.

RF tests¶

ACTION update: Will be presented next week at schedule review

website¶

Needs someone to own the problem. MOMs not updating the page. Part of the issue is lack of running. Requires encouragement from some person.

Linda MOM till Monday. Maybe for the head of the online group can pursue? Kaplan points out that the maintainer is Malcolm Ellis (who isn't here anymore)

Action on Colling: create momentum for website move

online group head¶

Blondel talked with Coney. Will re-discuss Monday.

NEW ACTION: Blondel to report on Monday meeting with Coney with regards to online group head

schedule review¶

It's next week. Small agenda changes. Not many people are making themselves available for the reviewers.

ACTION CLOSED: Planning for this is finished since it's next week.

Software¶

Rayner done all he can do. Now it is just time for the software group to vet it. It's on the list like many other things.

ACTION UPDATE: Colling to make sure software group vets paper for first paper

Beamline¶

Rogers does not want to be responsible for the beamline. Long may have a possibility.

ACTION on Long: Still find somebody to replace Marco

VC¶

EMR commissioning seems to be advancing. Constant light yields for most channel but some broken fibres. Only 90% of channels within 10% of normal. This does not affect the EMR test modules in June. Before the CM they will know the schedule and they are targeting to finish the EMR in November.

Action: Blondel to ask Tim about factoring in the schedule the EMR

Matters from TB¶

This will be discussed in schedule review next week.

MICE running and moms¶

Galena good for MOM to replace Roumen? Blondel to ask Long about this future MOM possibility.

ACTION: Blondel to ask Long about this replacement MOM

paper¶

Linda Coney and Paul Soler approached about taking over the paper. They will chat with Maurizio and Cobb.

Blondel wants to know if we should write two papers: one physics and one beamline? Long wants one paper, but if Soler and Coney want to do it that way then let them if they get it done.

We agree to proceed this way in the way Soler and Coney wish. Maurizio will be happy since it's more about the beamline and less analysis says Blondel.

ACTION: Maurizio and Cobb to talk with Soler and Coney.

Arxiv paper on neutrals¶

Proceedings approved by Maurizio. It wasn't clear at the VC that he was trying to get approved for an official MICE result, says Blondel. Long also says that you couldn't tell on the arxiv that this was a proceeding and nowhere did it say 'preliminary' on it.

Blondel made a first draft update of mice note 95 and will circulate it.

Blondel wants there to be two ever instances of a result: "preliminary" and then "result".

Do we want to withdrawal the note Blondel asks Ken from the arxiv. Ken wants to add 'preliminary' somewhere on it.

Blondel and everybody agrees.

NEW ACTION: Blondel to send around note 95 draft
NEW ACTION: Speaker's board to ensure results are marked preliminary

Agenda¶

Victoria sent information about meeting. People give proposal nufact talks at some special setting at the CM.

common fund¶

Levy was 180k and so far 138k have been collected. Outstanding from riverside and ucla. Gail says can't pay. Kaplan says she's paid better than other NSF places.

(Maurizio Bonesini joins)

In-kind contribution from Italy was NIM and CAMAC crates, which is missing from common fund slides sent around.

(Vittorio just joined)

There was a mistake in the spreadsheet related to Pavel Snopok and UCR actually only needs to pay 6k.

UCLA worth pursuing? Cline has no independent funding, according to Kaplan, since his money comes from Zisman.

Actions: Long emails Gail Hanson about common fund
ACTION: Blondel emails UCLA about common fund

new--- Blondel says Zisman asked about inkind for RF money and we haven't converged on this. Maybe we can't do it right now. Blondel mentioned to Charlotte who was not excited since their funding year was very hard. Need to follow up for 15 minutes to converge; Long agrees.

AOB¶

People at RAL will have to sign a letter, Ken says, and people have to sign something saying that people will act within accordance of the procedures that apply to STFC staff. This is modeled on what people get when they go to CERN.

Speaker's bureau¶

Before things are published, they are 'preliminary' and may require a stamp on plots. There are a few summer conference talks: Coney, Dobbs, Nebresky, etc.

Talks submit to Nufact: one for david Addey and one suggested by Zisman on 'lessons learned on MICE'.

We receive 10 abstracts within a few days, so hard to review. Nobody knew this was going to be 'official result'.

Accelerator people seem to like submitting abstracts since they don't publish much. Do we send too many abstracts to conferences? Blondel thinks 'yes' if we fail at Quality control.

Maurizio adds the following clarification to my minutes and what he says was felt by most present:

Just for sake of precision. The neutral paper was approved as conference proceedings (after an approved talk it is nearly due), submission as preprint to x-arkiv was never discussed.