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
- Rogers: do the trims in SSU
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
- beta = 800 mm (approx smallest available)
- 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)
- 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 about 6 years ago · 3 revisions