CR has been looking into the 17.5 mm bin issue; looks like it is consistent with MC, though origin of the low bin still not understood. Perhaps in the details of the binning/bin-by-bin amplitude routine. Looks okay for now.
FD has implemented systematic errors and corrections into the density analysis and is working on the fractional emittance. He also sent around a note detailing the modified cooling formula. Outstanding actions since last time.

intro (KL)
0th paragraph add section headings
1st paragraph needs revision; check historical details
3rd paragraph need caveat on e+e-
4th paragraph need frictional cooling

observables (CR)
introduce cooling formula; but phrased ito amplitude (FD) CR to integrate with paper (CR)
remove sentence regarding 9% centile just before eq 1
Add a sentence regarding "human readable" what is kNN algorithm
Joining sentence between "observables" and "MICE"

(CR) contact Jason Tarrant and photo repro regarding image
further KL edits
(CR) remove phase space figure to MICE note; consider 2d amplitude plot instead a la Francois thesis figure 6.25

(CR) investigate the 17.5 mm bin issue esp at 10-140 could check rebinning but low priority for now
(CR) francois asked by email - why is mc_reco sample size not same as reco sample size (they are supposed to be same sample
(CR) investigate the scraping aperture; add a vertical line corresponding to the scraping aperture; comment in text
(FD) fractional emittance is better than most significant bin as a table
(FD) need to do the efficiency correction on fractional emittance
(FD) need to do the efficiency correction on density
(CR) Check apertures in lH2 vs None absorber; KL claims window aperture should be mostly not there in "None"

Meet again next week - plan for Friday 22nd 3 pm after CM53 EB, KL to confirm by email

Updated by Drielsma, François almost 5 years ago · 6 revisions