* Main request was to plot fluxes for different target lengths
* Also compare sensitivity gains to extended running time
* Bob Zwaska and Chris Densham both presented thoughts on long targets:
* These and the associated discussion suggested many additions to the beam simulation task list:
* Study of beam spot size w/ cylindrical target
* Impact of Beryllium target on neutrino fluxes
* Energy deposition in target and how this scales w/ target length
* More energy deposited in horns may need additional consideration
* Also more energy reflected back from horn into target.
* Consider 2 “Numi sized” horns instead of one very long horn?
* Or Support target on both sides
* Impact of magnetic field inside target (if target is not electrically isolated for horn)
* Evaluation of new alignment tolerance not considered in the past: target sag
* Impact of magnetic field distortions at edges of horns
* How do hadron production uncertainties change with long target
* Impact of inner conductor size
* Paul Lebrun suggested we implement Chris’s split target idea but needs a description of material supports
* Chris said he’d work on that
* More or less decided to go for 3 horn
* What is the maximum beam size
* 3.4 mm not, but could that be changed?
* Beam experts mentioned 4 mm as upper limit of beam rms. is this a hard limit. how hard would it be to go higher?
* Should target/horn1A be one unit?
* Upcoming talks in future weeks:
* John Beck on spherical target
* Beam simulation plans talk postponed from this week
* Amit Bashyal on near/far extrapolation
* muon monitors — Alberto will contact relevant people
* Nikolai Mokhov on MARS
* Mary Bishai on older beam geometry studies
* Laura on new optimization plan — Oct 15th
* Alberto Marchionni will set agenda for next week