[PRad] draft presentation

[Eugene Pasyuk]

-Eugene

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ashot Gasparian" <gasparan at jlab.org>
> To: "Eugene Pasyuk" <pasyuk at jlab.org>
> Cc: "Ashot Gasparian" <gasparan at jlab.org>, "prad" <prad at jlab.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 5:59:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [PRad] draft presentation

> Okay, there is still the HyCal question open to me. I agree that we can
> survey GEMs
> vs. HyCal when HyCal is on the Transporter. But, we can not position and
> survey the
> HyCal in the beam position without taking it off from the Transporter.
> I am not sure how we can position HyCal on the beam without surveying it.
> Also, it
> needs to be fixed in the beam position.
> I tend to go with a ~4 hours of technicians work but have a provided
> measurements.
> 

We always can survey HyCal in Hall coordinates. The alignment is another story. Yes, we won't be able to do fine tuning (pitch/yaw/roll and Z translation). But we still can do X and Y translation using transporter to align hycal face centered on the geometrical beam axis. Survey guys can tell us how much up/down left/right to move. And they can tell tell us pitch/yaw/roll angles. We won't be able to adjust them but we will know them. My claim that for the short test run since HyCal is not calibrated anyways these angles are not very important if they are not 0. We will have to redo all the alignment procedures in May. For the test run the goal is to learn how to do that. THe other goal is to see that all the electronics and DAQ works as we want it.

> Please comment on this.
> 
> Also, can you put together those items for the Target sell alignment
> procedure?

I can try to write it up but I need some numbers from Chris: horizontal and distances to the edges of the quadrants.

> Thanks,
> Ashot
> 
> 
>>
>>
>> -Eugene
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Ashot Gasparian" <gasparan at jlab.org>
>>> To: "Eugene Pasyuk" <pasyuk at jlab.org>
>>> Cc: "Ashot Gasparian" <gasparan at jlab.org>, "prad" <prad at jlab.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 5:10:39 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [PRad] draft presentation
>>
>>> Eugene,
>>>
>>> Here are some discussions:
>>> 1) If we keep HyCal on the transporter we can not put accurately
>>>    enough in the beam and survey it (with the GEM).
>>
>> Here are my thoughts why.
>> GEM can be surveyed relative to HyCal regardless of whether it is on the
>> cart or on the transporter.
>> I agree that when HyCal is on the transporter we don't have Z-degree of
>> freedom. But for the test run it is not very important. If we put it on
>> the cart now, we will have to put it back on the transporter for
>> calibration in May and then back to the cart. This will save time and
>> efforts.
>>
>>> 2) We need to protect the rest of the setup while accelerator is
>>>    tuning the beam. The "Beam block" is in between two collimators.
>>>    We have done that in past many times. Are you referring to legal
>>>    terminology (safety) or a technical possibility?
>>
>> It's terminological. Also there is empty space between the collimator. To
>> block the beam we would need to move collimator by an inch or so from the
>> nominal position. You want protection from tagger magnet trip. There is an
>> FSD interlock for that, machine shuts down if magnet trips.
>>
>>> 3)for the "dropping 1(bcdf) items, I do not see a connection with HyCal
>>>   being in the beam. I think we need to see the quality of the e-beam
>>>   by scanning it with the upstream harp. Are you questioning the
>>>   detection part of the harp?
>>
>> No, we will do harp studies. These items are about photon radiator which
>> we do not need. We can leave for the very end if we have time.
>>
>>> 4) for the part 2(lmn), yes it is utilizing the additional foils with
>>>    quadrants. Do you want to change the wording?
>>
>> It is not just change of wording, it is a bit different procedure. We have
>> a rough idea but we need to spell it out step by step.
>>
>>> 5) yes, I will add the GEM timing part.
>>>
>>> Please comment, the HyCal in the beam is important question.
>>>
>>> Ashot
>>>
>>>> Some comments on the Run Plan.
>>>>
>>>> We should keep HyCal on the transporter for the test run.
>>>>
>>>> 1. There is no "Beam block" position for the collimator. We should use
>>>> FSD
>>>> interlock with tagger magnet power supply.
>>>>
>>>> Drop 1(b,c,d,f) It is pointless because HyCal will not be in the beam.
>>>>
>>>> Cell alignment procedure 2(l,m,n) should be changed to utilize
>>>> additional
>>>> foils with quadrants.
>>>>
>>>> Add GEM trigger delay adjustment.
>>>>
>>>> -Eugene
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Ashot Gasparian" <gasparan at jlab.org>
>>>>> To: "prad" <prad at jlab.org>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 4:09:15 PM
>>>>> Subject: [PRad] draft presentation
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The draft of my presentation is attached. I am still working on the
>>>>> formating
>>>>> part so, please check the information and the numbers for now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kondo, please check the "GEM Requirement" slides and let me know if
>>>>> some
>>>>> numbers need to be corrected.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Ashot
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PRad mailing list
>>>>> PRad at jlab.org
>>>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/prad