Minutes of the Muon Cooling meeting. Friday 19 Feb. 1999 Fermilab. Attended: A. Bross, P. Lebrun, D. Kaplan, D. Neuffer, E. Black, J. Norem, P. Spentzouris, V. Balbekov (Phonelink) Steve Kahn, Rick Fernow (Notes by Ed Black and Dan Kaplan; please reports any errors to kaplan@fnal.gov.) 1- Rick Fernow- Wedge simulation update Rick described his simulation of the longitudinal-transverse emittance exchange. He used a 3.5 T bent solenoid field and 400Mhz RF phase rotation plus a second opposite solenoid plus lithium-hydride wedges plus more RF, covering 2 Larmor wavelengths. The longitudinal emittance was reduced by 0.65. He optimized the transverse emittance growth by adjusting dipole parameters - unfortunately the transverse and longitudinal performances seem to be correlated! After 2 days of optimization he found an increase in momentum spread of 0.3 and in the 6D emittance of 80%. Rick will try a more complex field shape a la Norem. Paul asked whether the transverse emittance growth is due to lattice mismatch or due to the absorber. Rick thinks it is distributed over all the elements, with the first 15% in the first bent solenoid, and the absorber only one of many contributions. There is some controversy what the dipole field r-dependence should be, or whether it should be independent of r. Jim commented that 180* bend gives max dispersion but Rick says it increases the transverse-emittance growth. 2- Steve Kahn- MUCOOL tracking update Steve sees broad correlation of dy with p, believes need to correct for the integral of Bdl seen by each particle. He pointed out that the "reference particle" enters on-axis but leaves off-axis. It was suggested that he could tweak p to rectify this, i.e. "reference momentum" is not nominal. 3-Paul LeBrun- Cooling theory meeting summary Paul compared pi/2 (closed cell) versus pi (windowless cells) mode cavities, all at 805 MHz, found they behave equally well if pi mode can stand 60 MV/m max on-axis field. Jim questioned what happened to Paul's previous (preliminary) claim that pi-mode was "too good to be true," answer, that was mistaken and was due to his having fiddled with the multiple scattering and forgetting at first to restore it to deault. 4- Jim Norem- Bunch possibilities update Jim reminded us of the relationships between cos(theta) and theta and particle energy and velocity. From these follow the bucket shapes in KE vs. phi at various values of theta. The conclusion is that the bucket includes larger angles at lower energies and smaller angles at higher energies. With a stronger accelerating field, the theta-dependence is reduced, and also a wider range of energies is covered for each angle.