Difference between revisions of "Minutes-1-29-2015"
From GlueXWiki
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
- Right after these measurements, the software could no longer recognize the sensor and we were not able to do more measurements. Lubomir is contacting now the company to resolve the problem. We had also another issue with the company: the plastic adapter cup on the top of the sensor had holes drilled in a wrong place, but Scot fixed it. | - Right after these measurements, the software could no longer recognize the sensor and we were not able to do more measurements. Lubomir is contacting now the company to resolve the problem. We had also another issue with the company: the plastic adapter cup on the top of the sensor had holes drilled in a wrong place, but Scot fixed it. | ||
| − | - Noami did measurements with the prototype at CMU for gas mixtures with 50,55 and 60% Ar, results for the most probable amplitudes and maximum drift times are plotted by Beni. Comparing to the results at JLab one estimates the gas in the Hall to be ~57.5% Ar, very similar when using amplitudes or drift times and also close to the CO2 measurements: 100% - 41.4%CO2 -0.33% propanol = 58.3% Ar. | + | - Noami did measurements with the prototype at CMU for gas mixtures with 50,55 and 60% Ar, results for the most probable amplitudes and maximum drift times are plotted by Beni. Comparing to the results at JLab one estimates the gas in the Hall to be ~57.5% Ar, very similar when using amplitudes or drift times and also close to the CO2 measurements: 100% - 41.4%CO2 -0.33% propanol = 58.3% Ar. Keep in mind there some differences between the prototype and the CDC in the wire diameter (10%) and in the straw diameter. Also the effect of the alcohol at JLab is not taken into account. |
| − | - In summary in the CDC | + | - In summary, even with some uncertainty, we have in the CDC ~42% CO2 instead of 50%, and in the FDC the CO2 is 55% instead of 60%. It is not clear at all why this is happening. Both, CDC and FDC results can be explained by 20-22% increase of the argon. Beni thinks it might be due to the AR/CO2 separation (due to the density difference) in the mixing tank and proposes to use a heater to create convection. The plan will be to test all this with the CDC including the effect of the alcohol. |
| − | - | + | - Lubomir used the measured CO2 values for Garfield simulations of the time-to-distance functions, assuming 0.33% propanol (from vapor pressure estimates) for both FDC and CDC (plots attached). Comparing with the measurement for the CDC the gas calculated by Garfield is a little faster, i.e. needs some more CO2. For the FDC, Garfield describes very well the measurements, except in the region of 0.5-1.5 mm from the wire which can't be fixed by changing only the AR/CO2 ratio, i.e. the alcohol may play a role there. As Naomi found, Garfield has data only for isopropanol, which is used for both propanol and isopropanol. |
== FDC update == | == FDC update == | ||
Revision as of 20:05, 29 January 2015
January 29, 2015 FDC+CDC meeting
Connection
- Instructions for Bluejeans meeting connection
- FDC meeting ID: 290664653
- To join via a Web Browser, go to the page [1] https://bluejeans.com/290664653.
Agenda
- Collaboration meeting agenda
- Gas puzzle
- CDC update (Mike)
- FDC update
- Wire/strip resolution results strip res, wire res, wire res vs distance, x-residuals vs xy (Lubomir)
- Electronics (Fernando, Cody)
- CDC status (Nick, Chris)
- Engineering (Dave)
- Other
