Previous meeting

We will meet at 4 pm UK time. For those at RAL we will be in the MICE meeting room in R1.



  • Ao: can we get emittance change across TKU to TKD using unmatched beam
    • Stands
  • Rogers: do the trims in SSU
    • Stands


Note the deadline is end of January i.e. Tuesday - so we need to decide today...

1. Do we basically agree on the plan, i.e.:

At p = 140 MeV/c
  • beta = 200 mm
  • beta = 400 mm
  • beta = 800 mm
At p = 200 MeV/c
  • beta = 800 mm (approx smallest available)
At p = 240 MeV/c
  • beta ~ 1100 mm (approx smallest available)

2. Should we choose Ao's setting optimised for "unmatched beam" or "matched beam" for the beta = 200 mm setting at 140 MeV/c

Let's try not to regurgitate the point from last time...

  • Ao - we should take unmatched beam data with unmatched lattice; this gives us a measure of emittance reduction across the absorber with the best performing lattice
  • Jaroslaw - we should take unmatched beam data with matched lattice; this gives us an easier analysis for the higher beta function data; we can sample the lower beta function data; we can compare more easily to the solenoid data

3. Is there a better 200 MeV/c setting?


We agreed - it can reduce risk and enable more analyses to run with lattice optimised for unmatched beam; so we will take an unmatched beam setting. In light of this, we agreed on following settings:

Highest priority:
  • MICE_User_Run_2016_05-v1 1 (300 mm beta but optimised for unmatched beam, 140 MeV/c)
  • MICE_User_Run_2016_05_rogers-2 3 (450 mm beta, 140 MeV/c)
  • MICE_User_Run_2016_05_jp 7 (660 mm beta, 140 MeV/c); JP will attempt to optimise for slightly higher beta
  • MICE_User_Run_2016_05_jp 2 (830 mm beta, 200 MeV/c)
Lower priority:
  • MICE_User_Run_2016_05-v1 8 (1100 mm beta, 240 MeV/c; better transmission but not cooling)
  • MICE_User_Run_2016_05-v1 2 (250 mm beta, 140 MeV/c; tight focussing option)

Updated by Rogers, Chris over 7 years ago ยท 3 revisions