Emittance Paper* Progress

1 / 16

Emittance Paper* Progress - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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

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

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Emittance Paper* Progress' - jasia

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

EmittancePaper* 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
• Final e, a and b values existed only as plots, not numbers
• Wanted to understand and replicate numbers and plots
Progress
And so the games begin…
• Q1. Why does this happen?

Q1. Why does this happen?

• Needed the data
• Took time to figure out what was what

Q1. Why does this happen?

• Needed the data.
• Took time to figure out what was what
• Variable confusion
• Problem solved!
• Not very easily…

Q3. Can we remove horizontal dispersion?

• Again, not easily…
• Plus, saw some very odd effects!

Thankfully, Mark visited at this point

• Found a bug: TOF strip calibration mix-up
• Fixed data  So begin analysis again
• This time we know what we are looking for!

?

?

?

• Q5*: Are the simulations correct?

*See analysis talk for details

“140” beam

“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
• 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

“140” beam

“200” beam

“240” beam

Beta

“140” beam

“200” beam

“240” beam