Project

General

Profile

2019-02-22-amp-evolv-paper » History » Version 5

Rogers, Chris, 25 February 2019 08:48

1 1 Rogers, Chris
h1. 2019-02-22-amp-evolv-paper
2
3
h2. Actions
4 2 Rogers, Chris
5 1 Rogers, Chris
intro (KL)
6 2 Rogers, Chris
-0th paragraph add section headings-
7 1 Rogers, Chris
1st paragraph needs revision; check historical details
8
3rd paragraph need caveat on e+e-
9
4th paragraph need frictional cooling
10
11
observables (CR)
12
-introduce cooling formula; but phrased ito amplitude (FD)- -_CR to integrate with paper (CR)_-
13
-remove sentence regarding 9% centile just before eq 1-
14
-Add a sentence regarding "human readable" what is kNN algorithm- _FD to check CR's understanding (FD)_
15
-Joining sentence between "observables" and "MICE"-
16
17
MICE
18 2 Rogers, Chris
(CR) -contact Jason Tarrant and photo repro regarding image- _for now keep working on it amongst ourselves_
19
(FD) upload schematic latex to overleaf
20 1 Rogers, Chris
(CR) remove phase space figure to MICE note; consider 2d amplitude plot instead a la Francois thesis figure 6.25
21
22 2 Rogers, Chris
23 1 Rogers, Chris
Results
24
(CR) -investigate the 17.5 mm bin issue esp at 10-140- _could check rebinning but low priority for now_
25
(CR) _francois asked by email - why is mc_reco sample size not same as reco sample size (they are supposed to be same sample_
26
(CR) -investigate the scraping aperture _looks like it is MC offset_-; add a vertical line corresponding to the scraping aperture; comment in text
27
(FD) fractional emittance is better than most significant bin as a table
28
(FD) -need to do the efficiency correction on fractional emittance-
29
(FD) -need to do the efficiency correction on density-
30
(CR) -Check apertures in lH2 vs None absorber; KL claims window aperture should be mostly not there in "None"-
31 2 Rogers, Chris
(CR/FD) Check systematic for density in TKU 10 mm; why is SSU CC giving such large uncertainty?
32 1 Rogers, Chris
33 2 Rogers, Chris
h2. Notes from CM53
34
35 3 Rogers, Chris
36
Try Nature before Nature physics
37
38
Fig. 1 - schematic
39 4 Rogers, Chris
(CR) -Preferably plot B_{z}, or introduce an arbitrary factor of -1 after the absorber, or label as |B|-
40
(CR) -Note that the sigma(x) plot comes from linear beam optics calculation-
41 3 Rogers, Chris
42
Fig. 2 - phase space 2d plots
43
(CR) Interesting that there is a cliff in the x-py and y-px plots. Is this diffuser aperture (or some other aperture)
44
(CR) If show Phase space plots, put one beam ellipse on
45
46
Fig. 3 - amplitude pdf
47
(CR) Add the amplitude pdf plot without corrections to the supplementary information
48
(CR) Plot amplitude pdf as a histogram or without horizontal errors
49
(CR) Afterwards, JHC pointed out that log(n) vs sqrt(A) is linear for Gaussian beam. It might just confuse people to plot it.
50
(CR) Vertical axis label is wrong. Normalisation needs to be explained.
51
52
Fig. 4 - pdf ratio
53
(CR) Make MC less visible in pdf ratio plot - it tends to dominate
54
(CR) Increase the MC stats (implies going to production MC, it is time)
55
56
Fig. 5 - cdf ratio
57 5 Rogers, Chris
(CR) -The number of significant figures in the table is too great. Need to understand the difference between the errors for different data-
58 3 Rogers, Chris
(CR) John asked for raw pdf numbers
59
(CR) Discussion of which bin to choose and how to quantify the level at which we observe cooling
60
* Soler suggested CLS method
61
* Others suggested looking at significance of first bin rather than most significant bin
62
63
(CR) General - check the systematic error is reasonable; e.g. do we need to include big error for SSU and for SSD; check we only use -ve error in SSU