radio:paper14dec18 [Assay and Acquisition of Radiopure Materials]

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== Meeting Details ======

Time 9 am CDT (Dallas) (10 am EDT, 8 am MDT)

 - Go to the following website: http://shemp.physics.smu.edu/physics/index.jsp
  - Enter your name in the box 'Full Name'. This is how your name will be displayed for everyone to see.
  - Select 'Virtual Room - AARM Conference Room' from the pull down session menu.
  - Enter the pswd for the conference 'faarm'. Note it is case sensitive.
  - Hit the 'Join' button.

Once the session starts you will be prompted to 'allow' or 'deny' flash settings. You should select 'allow'. Then you will see a box to test your audio settings. If everything looks good hit 'Join Audio'. 

====== Agenda ======

  - [[https://lrt2015.npl.washington.edu/indico/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=5| LRT 2015]] Discussion (Jodi)
  - Updates on Progress
    - Marco - Research and propose dimensions for the argon target
    - Silvia - Summary of email discussions {{:radio:141205_email_summary.pdf|(pdf)}}{{:radio:1204_lowrad_hq.pdf|(plots from Hang)}} 
    - Kimberly - Start work on simulations {{:radio:141218_simulations.pdf|(pdf)}}

====== Minutes ======
Marco had suggested that Darkside G2 would be a 3T liquid argon target.  As such, he suggested a target that is a cylinder of 75 cm diameter and 1.5 m in height.  Kim had originally used a spherical design based on Darkside-50, but will change to the cylindrical design.

Kimberly led us through the topic of the simulations.  It was generally agreed that the acrylic used in the simulations was too thick and would, as a result, wash out the effects we hope to illustrate.  A discussion then ensued about what exactly we should simulate.  One suggestion was to put the source all around and right up against the target (with no shielding).  This maximize the visible differences of events in the target.  It was agreed that this is something we should do.  However, it was also generally agreed that we could look at results with nominal shielding as well.

Kimberly pointed out that she had worked with a summed spectrum of U & Th.  It was agreed that this in not the best approach as the effects could be washed out if one of the isotopes was dominating the spectra and yield.  It was agreed that the simulations should be done with the spectra separately, and then added together at the end.

Silvia summarized outstanding issues based on the questions she sent around in email.  Chao confirmed that U235 is not in the USD code.  This may be a small problem as Silvia had run the SOURCES calculations assuming natural U which has primarily U238, but also trace amounts of U235.  She will rerun the code removing U235 so that we can easily make a direct comparison.

Silvia also asked if it was relevant to separate the alpha emitters.  The USD website only has 2 or 3 sources.  However, Chao said more could be provided privately.

Finally, we ended by discussing the cross-section comparisons.  Hang had done some studies of this, but some of the details seem to be missing from his report.  So, it was decided to redo the study of the cross-sections just to be sure of the results.  Chao agreed to provide total cross sections from the USD code for comparison.

__Todo List:__
  * Kim:  Continue to work on the simulation studies as outlined above.
  * Silvia:  Redo cross-section comparison study.  Rerun all calculation of SOURCES spectra with U235 taken out of the code.
  * Chao:  Provide need cross-sections and alpha emitters as necessary.
User Tools

Page Tools
