[PRad] draft presentation

[Eugene Pasyuk]

I think the transporter will allow control on the millimeter level. 
Why would it move from the position if the motors are not moving?? Are you expecting an earthquake? We will have to disconnect and lock/tag power for the motor drivers once it is in position before we attach the pipe to the window. This is very important! If it moves, it breaks the window. 
We still have time to think about it and may be check with Dave Kashy who designed it. 

On the other subject. I think it would be good if you put direct answers to appropriate items from the report. The items are listed on the agenda next to your talk. 

-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 7:39:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [PRad] draft presentation

> 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