Difference between revisions of "April 25th, 2023"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
* On April 21th, ''Tanja Horn'' had a ''CPS'' meeting (main focus is CPS for Hall C) [https://wiki.jlab.org/cuawiki/index.php/Meeting_21_April_2023]. | * On April 21th, ''Tanja Horn'' had a ''CPS'' meeting (main focus is CPS for Hall C) [https://wiki.jlab.org/cuawiki/index.php/Meeting_21_April_2023]. | ||
| + | :* [https://wiki.jlab.org/cuawiki/images/8/80/CPS-April-221-2023.pdf Engineering Status Report] (''Steven Lassiter'') | ||
| + | :* [https://wiki.jlab.org/cuawiki/images/a/a5/Hall_C_CPS_4-21-23.pdf Mechanical Support and Layout] | ||
| + | :* [https://userweb.jlab.org/~pavel/projects/CPS_HC/March09/CPS_HC-Apr2023.pdf CPS FLUKA Model Update] (''Pavel'') | ||
| + | :* ''Donal's'' questions: My concerns will be assuaged if a we had a radiation dose prediction of the target after a month of running with an electron beam of 90 na. No CPS and a pure electron beam. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I’d like to compare the case presented by Pavel today with one where the beam energy and target details are unchanged but instead of a photon beam on the target, | ||
| + | the study would assume an electron beam of 90 na. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In other words, I’d like to compare what MIGHT be real-world conditions (with the CPS) with what would represent the conditions we have actually had in the past. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I might have asked for something that leaves us open to criticism that we are comparing apples to oranges. | ||
Revision as of 18:41, 21 April 2023
Attended: Moskov ... and Igor.
- On April 21th, Tanja Horn had a CPS meeting (main focus is CPS for Hall C) [1].
- Engineering Status Report (Steven Lassiter)
- Mechanical Support and Layout
- CPS FLUKA Model Update (Pavel)
- Donal's questions: My concerns will be assuaged if a we had a radiation dose prediction of the target after a month of running with an electron beam of 90 na. No CPS and a pure electron beam.
I’d like to compare the case presented by Pavel today with one where the beam energy and target details are unchanged but instead of a photon beam on the target, the study would assume an electron beam of 90 na.
In other words, I’d like to compare what MIGHT be real-world conditions (with the CPS) with what would represent the conditions we have actually had in the past.
I might have asked for something that leaves us open to criticism that we are comparing apples to oranges.
- On April 17th, we had a Hovanes CPS meeting discuss CPS design for Hall D and to prepare for ERR-I [2].
- Status update (Hovanes)
- CPS core temperature calculations from Poisson's equation (Hovanes)
- Two-magnet model with lead (Vitaly)
- Updates on the single-magnet CPS model (Pavel)