Difference between revisions of "Feb 14, 2020 Meeting Minutes"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Post-meeting notes== | ==Post-meeting notes== | ||
| − | * Marcy presented vacuum simulations of the CEBAF photogun and beamline. An excel spreadsheet of the vacuum data | + | * Marcy presented vacuum simulations of the CEBAF photogun and beamline. These simulations and vacuum conditions are for May 21, 2018. |
| + | * An excel spreadsheet of the vacuum data was been uploaded to the meeting page on Feb 21st | ||
| + | * Results of the ionization routine benchmarking test (see email subject above) was presented. | ||
| + | * Need to read article on ion velocity distribution and adjust simulations accordingly. Currently the GPT uses a random velocity distribution...maybe there is a better way to do it? | ||
[[Ionization Effects Meetings | Return to Ionization Effects Meetings]] | [[Ionization Effects Meetings | Return to Ionization Effects Meetings]] | ||
[[Weekly phone call - Feb 14, 2020 | Go to Meeting Page]] | [[Weekly phone call - Feb 14, 2020 | Go to Meeting Page]] | ||
Latest revision as of 13:11, 24 March 2020
Emails/attachments sent during the previous week
- Email chain subject name: comparison of input values, GPT/IBSimu Comparison Tests: Mean free path for 100 ions
- Date: Feb 7, 2020
- Description: Josh, Cristhian, and Ricardo Skyped to discuss test case to compare ionization routines - create electron simulation and adjust mean free path until 100 ions are produced within 1m.
Post-meeting notes
- Marcy presented vacuum simulations of the CEBAF photogun and beamline. These simulations and vacuum conditions are for May 21, 2018.
- An excel spreadsheet of the vacuum data was been uploaded to the meeting page on Feb 21st
- Results of the ionization routine benchmarking test (see email subject above) was presented.
- Need to read article on ion velocity distribution and adjust simulations accordingly. Currently the GPT uses a random velocity distribution...maybe there is a better way to do it?