Difference between revisions of "Meeting 20 April 2017"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | PRESENTATIONS | + | '''PRESENTATIONS''' |
* [https://wiki.jlab.org/cuawiki/images/a/a4/ToyCPS_1.pdf DINREG/GEANT3 simulation (Pavel)] | * [https://wiki.jlab.org/cuawiki/images/a/a4/ToyCPS_1.pdf DINREG/GEANT3 simulation (Pavel)] | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
* [https://wiki.jlab.org/cuawiki/images/5/5c/Jixie_Benchmark_Project_Apr202017.pdf simulation (Jixie)] | * [https://wiki.jlab.org/cuawiki/images/5/5c/Jixie_Benchmark_Project_Apr202017.pdf simulation (Jixie)] | ||
| − | * [https://wiki.jlab.org/cuawiki/images/0/0c/GN_HCPS_4_20_2017.pdf GEANT4 simulation ( | + | * [https://wiki.jlab.org/cuawiki/images/0/0c/GN_HCPS_4_20_2017.pdf GEANT4 simulation (Gabriel)] |
| − | HOMEWORK | + | '''NOTES''' |
| + | |||
| + | * Discussion about simulation results comparison with the toy model specifications Pavel sent in his 30 March 2017 email | ||
| + | ::* Simulations were done with DINREG/GEANT3 (Pavel), FLUKA (Jixie, George), MCNP6 (Igor), GEANT4 (Gabriel) | ||
| + | ::* All results show that iron produces more low energy neutrons compared to tungsten | ||
| + | ::* The results from GEANT3 and GEANT4 agree in order of magnitude for both neutrons and photons | ||
| + | ::* Results from MNCP6, FLUKA and GEANT differ in order of magnitude for neutrons and a factor of 2-3 for photons | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Overall, the results suggest that a high-intensity photon source design is possible that satisfies both, the requirements in the hall (people can still work on the pivot) and outside (site boundary condition). Materials will still need to be optimized. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''HOMEWORK (from Thia's 4/21/17 email)''' | ||
* We agreed that the two WACS-focused groups would send suggested toy models of their systems that they would like to work on before the next meeting to Rolf, Tanja, and I for comment. This should be done in the next couple days so that we can iterate this back out quickly. All will work with a 10% radiator, 2.5 uAmps, 11.5 GeV beam for now. | * We agreed that the two WACS-focused groups would send suggested toy models of their systems that they would like to work on before the next meeting to Rolf, Tanja, and I for comment. This should be done in the next couple days so that we can iterate this back out quickly. All will work with a 10% radiator, 2.5 uAmps, 11.5 GeV beam for now. | ||
Latest revision as of 11:19, 22 April 2017
PRESENTATIONS
NOTES
- Discussion about simulation results comparison with the toy model specifications Pavel sent in his 30 March 2017 email
- Simulations were done with DINREG/GEANT3 (Pavel), FLUKA (Jixie, George), MCNP6 (Igor), GEANT4 (Gabriel)
- All results show that iron produces more low energy neutrons compared to tungsten
- The results from GEANT3 and GEANT4 agree in order of magnitude for both neutrons and photons
- Results from MNCP6, FLUKA and GEANT differ in order of magnitude for neutrons and a factor of 2-3 for photons
- Overall, the results suggest that a high-intensity photon source design is possible that satisfies both, the requirements in the hall (people can still work on the pivot) and outside (site boundary condition). Materials will still need to be optimized.
HOMEWORK (from Thia's 4/21/17 email)
- We agreed that the two WACS-focused groups would send suggested toy models of their systems that they would like to work on before the next meeting to Rolf, Tanja, and I for comment. This should be done in the next couple days so that we can iterate this back out quickly. All will work with a 10% radiator, 2.5 uAmps, 11.5 GeV beam for now.
- In parallel, we all agreed that actual experiment benchmarking of the results, in particular the "interesting" differences we observed between codes, was important work to pursue.
- Also, it seemed clear that the Hall D K_long effort was positively on track with what we did already - perhaps move to a rectangular toy model of the same thing with a beam aperture is all that's needed as a next step here.