Hi john,
I can't answer that question directly. Maybe how to scale was ambiguosly
described. What I had in mind and said repeatedly is take these (results
from the last few days) and stretch it 300 kC, assuming current target
thickness an dpolarization
For 32 deg data I think the effect is only a factor sqrt(1.1) for the
luminosity. Adding the 45 deg spin data we get another 20% in statistics.
Of course the polarization matters more, so these contributions will
become less importn.
-- ________________________________________________________________________________ Tancredi Botto, phone: +1-617-253-9204 mobile: +1-978-490-4124 research scientist MIT/Bates, 21 Manning Av Middleton MA, 01949 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, John Calarco wrote:
> > Tancredi, et al., > > Let me ask a question to clarify some confusion I have. Is everyone > giving projections for a TOTAL of 300 kC or for 300 kC IN ADDITION to > what we have? > > John > > > > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Tancredi Botto wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > at the last meeting (the minutes are still in my crashed HD..) we agree > > on using a uniform scaling factor to be applied to projection of future > > data. > > > > We also agreed that one should assume the current target thickness and > > polarization "as is". This eliminates 40,60 cm, M=2, M=4,.. discussions. > > As a benchmark I then take last week's running, when we integrated 23.6 kC > > over 7 days, and 16 shifts (I take out 5 shifts lost due to power failure > > recovery). That makes it 1.5 kC/shift. > > > > So <on average> we should be able to integrate 25.5 kC/week. Counting for > > another 13 weeks, that should add up to be about 330 kC. This corresponds > > to 1000 continuous hrs with a flat 91.2 mA current. So please scale your > > statistics (at the current yield, polarization) to 300 kC. > > > > > > The goal is to have that much by october 17 (with no other contingency). > > > > I guessed that during a typical production week we "lose" 4 shifts of ABS > > data due to a) snake-fill b) empty-tgt c) unpol_running, which corresponds > > to an 80% beam-on-pol-target efficiency. Clearly some weeks it may be > > only 3 shifts, some others we may overall loose more time. You can argue > > that the above estimate is a bit conservative but it is a good start. > > > > Note that last week we had injection current was 140-150 mA, lifetime was > > around 25 mins, with dead time of 20 % at 130 mA, 10 % at 90 mA, adding > > another 15 % inefficiency. We mostly re-injected at 90 mA, which was > > optimal. > > > > > > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:31 EST