Difference between revisions of "April 25th, 2023"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:* [[media:core_temp_mathematica_04_17_2023.pdf | CPS core temperature calculations from Poisson's equation]] (''Hovanes'') | :* [[media:core_temp_mathematica_04_17_2023.pdf | CPS core temperature calculations from Poisson's equation]] (''Hovanes'') | ||
:* Two-magnet model with lead (''Vitaly'') | :* Two-magnet model with lead (''Vitaly'') | ||
| − | :* Updates on the single-magnet CPS model (''Pavel'') | + | :* Updates on the single-magnet CPS model (''Pavel'' - no news) |
Revision as of 06:54, 23 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 - no news)