Project

General

Profile

2019-03-01 amp-evolv » History » Version 6

Rogers, Chris, 01 March 2019 15:29

1 1 Rogers, Chris
h1. 2019-03-01 amp-evolv
2
3
4
h2. Actions
5
6
intro (KL)
7
-0th paragraph add section headings-
8
1st paragraph needs revision; check historical details
9
3rd paragraph need caveat on e+e-
10
4th paragraph need frictional cooling
11
12
observables (CR)
13
-introduce cooling formula; but phrased ito amplitude (FD)- -_CR to integrate with paper (CR)_-
14
-remove sentence regarding 9% centile just before eq 1-
15 5 Drielsma, Fran├žois
-Add a sentence regarding "human readable" what is kNN algorithm- -_FD to check CR's understanding (FD)_-
16 1 Rogers, Chris
-Joining sentence between "observables" and "MICE"-
17
18
MICE
19
(CR) -contact Jason Tarrant and photo repro regarding image- _for now keep working on it amongst ourselves_
20
(FD) -upload schematic latex to overleaf-
21 6 Rogers, Chris
(FD) Add labels to schematic; make lH2 not LiH absorber; general "look and feel" stuff 
22 1 Rogers, Chris
(CR) remove phase space figure to MICE note; consider 2d amplitude plot instead a la Francois thesis figure 6.25
23
24
25
Results
26
(CR) -investigate the 17.5 mm bin issue esp at 10-140- _could check rebinning but low priority for now_
27
(CR) _francois asked by email - why is mc_reco sample size not same as reco sample size (they are supposed to be same sample_
28
(CR) -investigate the scraping aperture _looks like it is MC offset_-; add a vertical line corresponding to the scraping aperture; comment in text
29
(FD) fractional emittance is better than most significant bin as a table
30
(FD) -need to do the efficiency correction on fractional emittance-
31
(FD) -need to do the efficiency correction on density-
32
(CR) -Check apertures in lH2 vs None absorber; KL claims window aperture should be mostly not there in "None"-
33
(CR/FD) Check systematic for density in TKU 10 mm; why is SSU CC giving such large uncertainty?
34
35
h2. Notes from CM53
36
37
38
Try Nature before Nature physics
39
40
Fig. 1 - schematic
41
(CR) -Preferably plot B_{z}, or introduce an arbitrary factor of -1 after the absorber, or label as |B|-
42
(CR) -Note that the sigma(x) plot comes from linear beam optics calculation-
43
44
Fig. 2 - phase space 2d plots
45
(CR) Interesting that there is a cliff in the x-py and y-px plots. Is this diffuser aperture (or some other aperture)
46
(CR) If show Phase space plots, put one beam ellipse on
47
48
Fig. 3 - amplitude pdf
49
(CR) Add the amplitude pdf plot without corrections to the supplementary information
50
(CR) Plot amplitude pdf as a histogram or without horizontal errors
51
(CR) Afterwards, JHC pointed out that log(n) vs sqrt(A) is linear for Gaussian beam. It might just confuse people to plot it.
52
(CR) Vertical axis label is wrong. Normalisation needs to be explained.
53
54
Fig. 4 - pdf ratio
55
(CR) Make MC less visible in pdf ratio plot - it tends to dominate
56
(CR) Increase the MC stats (implies going to production MC, it is time)
57
58
Fig. 5 - cdf ratio
59
(CR) -The number of significant figures in the table is too great. Need to understand the difference between the errors for different data-
60
(CR) John asked for raw pdf numbers
61
(CR) Discussion of which bin to choose and how to quantify the level at which we observe cooling
62
* Soler suggested CLS method
63
* Others suggested looking at significance of first bin rather than most significant bin
64 4 Rogers, Chris
65 2 Rogers, Chris
(CR) Move the points to the bin edge, not bin centre; look-and-feel issues
66 3 Rogers, Chris
(CR) Check systematic error correlations are handled correctly
67 1 Rogers, Chris
68
(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 
69
(CR) General - move to production