Choose timezone
Your profile timezone:
Powered by Indico
v3.3.5
Meeting ID: 916 7025 7822
Password: 434044
Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://weizmann.zoom.us/j/91670257822?pwd=L01uZHJMTmtmNkdpUklOTnlMU1M5QT09
Marin:
- mad8 is a common tool used also in the EU.XFEL? —> industry standard for the XFEL.
- why is there such a difference between x and y? —>
- left histograms in slide 25 looks shifted?
- what is the meaning of the linearity assumption?
- 1-1.5 um resolution is maybe too high for the 5um spot? —> the resolution should loosely depend on the focus (here 10 um was assumed) —> need to check also the 5um.
- talk with Sasha about the needle setup
- Louis:
- there’s existing equipment (BPMs) so what would be the impact on the resolution for that alone without the new ones? —> RHUL have the lattice but they didn’t know where are the existing BMPs so they started from scratch initially —> will do this next.
Stewart: there’s some flexibility.
- there are 7 BPMs in this design to get to the optimal measurement but the original design has more - why is that? —> Stewart: just to know the IP position it is enough but there are other purposes.
- Daniel:
- analysis is focused on the IP but we should look also at the Bremss target and the ICS —> can also put a screen in the ICS/target area
- this is the accuracy of the measurement of the beam position, not fluctuation in it’s actual position (usually 10-20% is the actual position )
- Sasha and Stewart:
- what is measured here is the centroid of the beam, not the size.
- the same analysis can also be a applied to get the profile of the beam
Raquel:
- still discrepancy between the new ptarmigan results and the paper ones
- proceeded to check different dump configurations nevertheless (length, material)