Difference between revisions of "April 25th, 2023"

From kl project
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 6: Line 6:
 
:* [https://wiki.jlab.org/cuawiki/images/a/a5/Hall_C_CPS_4-21-23.pdf Mechanical Support and Layout]
 
:* [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'')
 
:* [https://userweb.jlab.org/~pavel/projects/CPS_HC/March09/CPS_HC-Apr2023.pdf CPS FLUKA Model Update] (''Pavel'')
 +
:* Hall D has a chance to get a portion of 40 t lead from SLAC depending on Hall C.
 
:* ''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.
 
:* ''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.
  

Revision as of 06:57, 23 April 2023

Attended: Moskov ... and Igor.


  • On April 21th, Tanja Horn had a CPS meeting (main focus is CPS for Hall C) [1].

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].