[PRad] draft presentation

[gasparan at jlab.org]

  If we can position the HyCal in the beam with a +/- 1. mm
 accuracy without taking it from the Transporter then we can
 go with that option. There is one more question on this way:
 how we are going to keep that alignment for 3 days?
 If it is also possible then we go with that option.

 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 5:59:18 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
>