 |
| Yasu Matsuda 2004-10-12 12:45:08 | Hello, I am new to this computing attempt, it's really interesting! A question. How much the muon transfer efficiency will be affected if we change the target's dimentions? Will the best set of parameters for current target dimentions give reasonablly good result for a different design of the target, say, for a jet target? |
| Stephen Brooks 2004-10-13 05:33:23 | The current target shape is fairly 'representative' of either a segment of a metal toroid or the piece of the mercury jet that interacts with the beam. However, there will be small differences if I were to put in either the real toroid shape or a parabolic mercury jet. There's also an even more pressing question of whether changing the proton beam energy on the target will affect the optics required, and whether there is a 'best' energy. I'm planning on testing this in later optimisations. |
| Yasu Matsuda 2004-10-13 10:46:06 | Thank you very much for prompt reply. Another question, if you don't mind. Are you working with MECO group, or planning so? I would imagine it will be a significat milestone for both distributed computing community and physics community if these distributed computing approach is used for real construction of a big apparatus. (I am not working for MECO nor have any close friends, so I don't know how far their design work has reached...maybe they've fixed all parameters already?) |
| Stephen Brooks 2004-10-14 07:29:10 | I haven't worked with MECO, though I see why you think it's a similar sort of problem. I think in fact their geometry is quite complicated so they've used fieldmaps with GEANT (which can also do particle interactions with matter). They are probably also sufficiently far along that they've fixed their optical design, whereas NuFact is quite fluid at the moment. |
| Yasu Matsuda 2004-10-15 09:09:15 | Thank you again for informative answer! and have a nice weekend. |
