Difference between revisions of "Mar 13, 2020 Meeting Minutes"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "==Emails/attachments sent during the previous week== *Email chain subject name: Ion energy consumption from Bethe's original article (1930) **Date: Mar 2-4, 2020 **Description...") |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Emails/attachments sent during the previous week== | ==Emails/attachments sent during the previous week== | ||
− | *Email chain subject name: | + | *Email chain subject name: Investigating EField on axis between 0.1 and 0.3 |
− | **Date: Mar | + | **Date: Mar 9, 2020 |
− | **Description: Josh sent a | + | **Description: Josh sent plots of Ez vs z between 0.1 and 0.3m to see if there is indeed a bump in the electric field. These plots showed no bump in the e-field, even at small stepsizes. Cristhian said that one possible reason for a bump in his e-field plots is because he is solving the E-field using Neumann boundary conditions at the end of the beamline. |
==Post-meeting notes== | ==Post-meeting notes== | ||
− | * | + | * asdf |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
[[Ionization Effects Meetings | Return to Ionization Effects Meetings]] | [[Ionization Effects Meetings | Return to Ionization Effects Meetings]] | ||
[[Weekly phone call - Mar 13, 2020 | Go to Meeting Page]] | [[Weekly phone call - Mar 13, 2020 | Go to Meeting Page]] |
Revision as of 14:27, 24 March 2020
Emails/attachments sent during the previous week
- Email chain subject name: Investigating EField on axis between 0.1 and 0.3
- Date: Mar 9, 2020
- Description: Josh sent plots of Ez vs z between 0.1 and 0.3m to see if there is indeed a bump in the electric field. These plots showed no bump in the e-field, even at small stepsizes. Cristhian said that one possible reason for a bump in his e-field plots is because he is solving the E-field using Neumann boundary conditions at the end of the beamline.
Post-meeting notes
- asdf