Re: Tagger design

[Richard Jones <richard.t.jones@uconn.edu>]

Tim,

The first and most obvious thing I see is the collision between the 
fixed array and the microscope.  Can you move the fixed array back by 
another 20cm away from the exit window?  I am doing a Monte Carlo study 
and check out the resolution at that distance.  So far my results show 
that the energy resolution is still dominated by the fixed array counter 
widths even if you move them as far back as 50cm (normal translation 
direction) from the exit window.  Of course, this means that they also 
have to be translated downstream from their present positions and their 
sizes and spacings modified a wee bit.

Richard Jones


Tim Whitlatch wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> As we had discussed during yesterdays meeting, I have posted some 
> drawings showing the critical dimensions and interfaces for the 
> magnet, hodoscope, microscope and vacuum chamber. I know some of these 
> do not match what is currently being used in the software. I took a 
> stab at the magnet dimensions with the increased step in the poles for 
> the vacuum chamber walls. I have posted the drawings in order to get 
> feedback and consensus on the required numbers. Please review them and 
> add return comments to the email list. In order to have a reasonable 
> set of consistent drawings for the Tagger review, these need to be 
> nailed down within a week.  If I missed anything or misrepresented 
> anything, please let me know. The drawings are on the wiki at;
>
> http://www.jlab.org/Hall-D/software/wiki/index.php/Tagged_Beam_Group_Engineering_Drawings 
>
>
> The last 2 links under the Tagging spectrometer with the Sept. 26, 
> 2008 date.
>
> Cheers,
>
>       Tim
>
>