Difference between revisions of "General Meeting Summary 6/11/20"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
'''HV DIVIDERS - ANODE CURRENT''' (Fernando) | '''HV DIVIDERS - ANODE CURRENT''' (Fernando) | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [https://wiki.jlab.org/cuawiki/images/b/b0/NPS-HV-divider-anode-current-status-summary-06112020.pdf Status Summary] | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [https://wiki.jlab.org/cuawiki/images/d/d3/PMT_anode_current.pdf PMT Anode Current Summary (Bogdan's slides)] | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [https://wiki.jlab.org/cuawiki/images/b/b6/Gap_between_PCB_and_other_dimensions.pdf Gap between PCB and other dimensions] | ||
NEXT MEETING: THURSDAY 18 JUNE AT 9:00AM (ET) | NEXT MEETING: THURSDAY 18 JUNE AT 9:00AM (ET) |
Latest revision as of 17:17, 11 June 2020
PARTICIPANTS: Alex Camsonne, Bogdan Wojtsekhowski, Charles Hyde Dustin Keller, Rolf Ent, Fernando Barbosa, Carlos Munoz-Camacho, Hamlet Mkrtchyan, Paulo Medeiros, Hakob Voskanyan, Tanja Horn, Marie Boer, Jacob Murphy, Eric Voutier, Vardan Tadevosyan, Julie Roche, Amy Comer, Vladimir Berdnikov
NPS EXPERIMENT PROPOSALS
1) DVCS with Positrons (Carlos)
- Goal: clean separation of DVCS2 term from DVCS-BH interference - more stringent constraint on CFFs
- Same experimental configuration as approved E12-13-010, 77 days, >5uA positrons, 25% of electron beam time
- Discussion:
- General comment on proposal document: add an executive summary - start document more general, start with formulas, then what is unique about positrons, why it is crucial to measure DVCS2
- For fit improvement discussion perhaps best to say that shown are the uncertainties for the approved electron statistics and assumed positron statistics
- For correlations to make point that can much better separate H/Htilde make plot 1D or emphasize the improvement, e.g. with numbers - highlight the most relevant part in the matrix and reduce emphasis on the rest of it
- Proposal can formally list the support of the NPS collaboration
2) TCS (Marie, Dustin, Vardan)
- Discussion of the posted document:
- Document is 100 pages long - too long, too much on phenomenology, not enough on experiment
- Very theory heavy - too much formalism, better to give highlights, most important points and references to the details
- Include a high level summary as suggested for DVCS with positrons - must make clear in very beginning what the proposal is about
- Experimental section incomplete - need to include background estimates etc.
- Most crucial: will the detector actually work?
- One possible approach: discuss in ~20 pages how addressed PAC questions and leave the rest as backup
- Action Item: update document and circulate for comments
HV DIVIDERS - ANODE CURRENT (Fernando)
NEXT MEETING: THURSDAY 18 JUNE AT 9:00AM (ET)