[Bteam] Fwd: [Moller] MOLLER MIE proposal submitted

[Jay Benesch]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[Moller] MOLLER MIE proposal submitted
Date: 	Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:56:53 -0400
From: 	Krishna Kumar <kkumar at physics.umass.edu>
To: 	moller at jlab.org

Dear MOLLER collaborator:

I am pleased to inform you that the MOLLER MIE proposal was submitted
last week by JLab director Mont to DoE NP Director Tim Hallman. The
final version can be found at this location for the next couple of weeks:
https://userweb.jlab.org/~riordan/DOE_Moller.pdf

......

It would be great if you all looked at section 7 as well as the
appropriate appendices and figured out how you would like to contribute
to the large number of technical tasks on hand to develop this project.

Cheers,
KK


B team members,

MOLLER is one of two fourth generation parity experiments which have 
been approved by the PAC for installation in hall A. SOLID is the other. 
  AFAIK, SOLID has not generated a proposal to DOE.  MOLLER is what we 
have to look at to determine what development is needed to provide the 
required beam parameters, which are tougher than PREx or Qweak.

I've gone through the Sept. 1 draft in detail and have highlighted on my 
hard copy things you may find interesting.  I list them below with 
reference to the Sept. 12 proposal location.  We should talk about this 
some time in B team.

p23 of pdf, page 10 of proposal: length 28m.  Radius of hall A is 87' or 
26.5m and the detector can't be right up against the dump tunnel.

p12 of proposal, lines 4-5 on beam centroid fluctuations

p21 of proposal, section 3.5.1 bottom paragraph

p23, 3.6 Hall A infrastructure, first paragraph: cryo target starts 
about 7m upstream of the pivot.

p24, table 5 beam helicity correlated parameter specs

p25, table 6, what's been achieved on experiments vs what's needed.

p26, top four lines, on effects of laser spot size

p29, top paragraph, on Ops manual feedback to minimize transverse 
polarization.

p 32, table 9, estimated beam time.  101 calendar weeks including 
commissioning.

p34, section 5.2.4, paragraphs 2 and 3 on 93 MeV beam energy changes.

p36 R&D topics re the electron beam

p40, Moller polarimetry - space in the beam line must be reserved for 
atomic hydrogen target replacing the iron foil.  100cm vs 30cm now?

p43, appendix A, deals with the polarized beam.  The whole section is 
relevant but the things that worry me most are on page 48.

p48, first bullet: There's only ~5m from the end of the last quad to the 
start of the target 7m upstream of the pivot - including the fast 
raster.  For another $500K one might be able to reduce the length of the 
Compton by 2m.  I can't see any way to get 10m.  So BPM resolution must 
be one micron, not "a few".

p48, second bullet - same trouble as above

p48, A.5.3, for more stuff related to the bullets.

p52, top paragraph, requires the use of the helicity magnets

p52, section A.6, control of HCBA, should be read.

p67, figure 35 These magnet coils may be mounted in vacuum so the vessel 
can be a simple cylinder as mentioned in the top paragraph on the page.

p84, F.2.3  chicane magnet modification proposed is non-physical.  The 
guys at UVa weren't "properly" distorting a 3D problem into a 2D problem 
they could tackle with POISSON.  I'm waiting on some more info before I 
start playing with this in OPERA.

Jay


-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Attached Message Part
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/bteam/attachments/20110919/29d001b0/attachment.ksh>