V blackmore j cobb m rayner
Download
1 / 16

Emittance Paper* Progress - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 71 Views
  • Uploaded on

V. Blackmore, J. Cobb, M. Rayner. Emittance Paper* Progress. *A.K.A. “MICE through a microscope”. Began with the numbers and plots in Mark’s thesis Very helpful for understanding what was done Plots for (6, 200) m - case only

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Emittance Paper* Progress' - jasia


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
V blackmore j cobb m rayner

V. Blackmore, J. Cobb, M. Rayner

EmittancePaper* Progress

*A.K.A. “MICE through a microscope”


Progress

Progress


And so the games begin
And so the games begin…

  • Q1. Why does this happen?









  • Thankfully, Mark visited at this results?point

  • Found a bug: TOF strip calibration mix-up

  • Fixed data  So begin analysis again

    • This time we know what we are looking for!


? results?

?

?

  • Q5*: Are the simulations correct?

*See analysis talk for details


Current understanding

“140” beam results?

“200” beam

“240” beam

Currentunderstanding

  • Feels like we’re getting closer (we certainly have a better understanding of the MICE beam)

  • Have re-analysed all of the data with the correct TOF calibrations

  • Need believable simulation to compare too

  • Then we can demonstrate the agreement/disagreement of our expectations with reality

  • But still will take time

“140” beam

“200” beam

“240” beam


Plan results?

  • Sort through simulation

    • Check which quadrupole field maps were used

    • Check signs of fields

    • Check G4MICE version

    • Then: re-evaluate G4beamline input, say, look at (6, 200) beam

    • Think hard!

  • Discover source of problem

    • Real or a bug?

    • If bug: do we now agree?

    • Compare reconstructed parameters with data

    • Quantify any (dis)agreement

    • Demonstrate (one) beam through MICE Step 6?


Emittance
Emittance results?

“140” beam

“200” beam

“240” beam


Beta results?

“140” beam

“200” beam

“240” beam


ad