1 / 16

Emittance Paper* Progress

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

jasia
Download Presentation

Emittance Paper* Progress

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. V. Blackmore, J. Cobb, M. Rayner EmittancePaper* Progress *A.K.A. “MICE through a microscope”

  2. 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

  3. And so the games begin… • Q1. Why does this happen?

  4. Q1. Why does this happen? • Needed the data • Took time to figure out what was what

  5. Q1. Why does this happen? • Needed the data. • Took time to figure out what was what • Variable confusion • Problem solved!

  6. Q2. Can we remove the resolution of the detector from our results?

  7. Q2. Can we remove the resolution of the detector from our results? • Not very easily…

  8. Q3. Can we remove horizontal dispersion?

  9. Q3. Can we remove horizontal dispersion? • Again, not easily… • Plus, saw some very odd effects!

  10. Q4. What is causing these oddities?

  11. 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!

  12. ? ? ? • Q5*: Are the simulations correct? *See analysis talk for details

  13. “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

  14. 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?

  15. Emittance “140” beam “200” beam “240” beam

  16. Beta “140” beam “200” beam “240” beam

More Related