1. 3 June 2009J. H. Cobb 1 ANALYSIS SUMMARY CM24 Agenda for Analysis parallel session at CM24 -------------------------------------------- Sunday 31 May 14:00 - 17:30 14:00 - 14:20 R. Tsenov (pp Y. Karadzhov) TOF Calibration 14:20 - 14:40 M. Rayner Emittance Measurements with TOFs 14:40 - 15:00 D. Forrest Statistical Errors 15:00 - 15:20 D. Adey Beam Weighting 16:00 - 16:10 J. Cobb Effect of Absorber displacement 16:10 - 16:30 C. Rogers Eigen emittances (tbd) ============================================================= 16:30 - 17:30 All Field mapping - Discussion

2. 3 June 2009J. H. Cobb 2 TOF CALIBRATION: R. Tsenov pp Y.K. Also reported by M. Bonesini in plenary session & a VC 51 & 62 pS resolution achieved (but not for all pixels due to lack of illumination) e/  /  TOF spectrum not yet fully understood dE/dX in materials, path length Beam simulation recently provided by Marco Apollonio TBC

3. 3 June 2009J. H. Cobb 3 BEAM EMITTANCE: M. Rayner December 400 MeV/c pion data TOF position measurements + calculated Xfer matrix for Q789  Optical parameters  and emittance of beam between TOFs Comparison with G4BL simulations of M. Apollonio started -- tbc Important as: 1.Check of beamline codes 2.Measure emittance of muons upstream of TOF1 in STEP I

4. 3 June 2009J. H. Cobb 4 STATISTICAL ERRORS: D. Forrest Question: “Given that up- and downstream measurements on the same set of muons are correlated, what is statistical error on change in emittance?” Truly heroic effort of many many G4MICE simulations on GRID Answer: About 10 times fewer muons required than if samples are uncorrelated This is good news! (But must be pencil & paper route to the answer.)

5. 3 June 2009J. H. Cobb 5 EVENT WEIGHTING: D. Adey Developing algorithm using Voronoi cells to weight input beam to desired distribution in (6D) phase space Weight = Integral of target distribution over cell area Demonstrated in 2D Some technical difficulties (memory limitations) Will be tried on MC data (but also needs beam simulation??) A statistical question – Which is statistically better, weighted or accepted/rejected events?

6. 3 June 2009J. H. Cobb 6 FIELD MAPPING: Discussion Question: “Given the time & expense, is it necessary to map the Coupling (and Focus) coils? Especially as they are unscreened and susceptible to local iron &c. If so how well?” Lively(ish) discussion Shield walls are important. They shift the reference axis but don’t [seem to] change emittance Not clear that fine grid detailed mapping of coils is useful ex situ Is a large scale, coarse grid, map of field in Hall required? How? How else can we know fields are as calculated in situ ? TBC

7. 3 June 2009J. H. Cobb 7 THE END