1. Stats update Was asked to provide comparison between toy mc and g4mice at two points along z (middle of first and third absorbers) 10,000 events, step VI Can add more points etc later Toy MC has multiple scattering and energy loss but does not have full range of G4MICE features eg proper transport, rf etc Further details about Toy MC in previous talk (http://mice.iit.edu/pc/pc383/pc383.html)

2. Middle of first absorber  Error on  X (mm) Toy mc3.60806e+012.44418e-01 G4MICE3.56847e+013.03555e-01 Px (MeV) Toy mc1.72838e+011.29805e-01 G4MICE1.73938e+011.47655e-01 Y (mm) Toy mc3.58319e+012.37602e-01 G4MICE3.59309e+013.04010e-01 Py (MeV) Toy mc1.75332e+011.32005e-01 G4MICE1.73276e+011.45239e-01

3. Middle of third absorber  Error on  X (mm) Toy mc3.60806e+012.44418e-01 G4MICE3.23840+012.75168e-01 Px (MeV) Toy mc1.50951e+011.07633e-01 G4MICE1.73670e+011.34621e-01 Y (mm) Toy mc3.58319e+012.37602e-01 G4MICE3.32514e+012.81097e-01 Py (MeV) Toy mc1.52588e+011.09186e-01 G4MICE1.77878e+011.44307e-01

4. Summary Toy MC observes ~ 12.1% cooling for 6pi beam, between middle of first absorber and middle of third G4MICE has 9.5% cooling between two trackers (cutting if particle doesn’t make downstream tracker), 6.2% between same points at absorbers (same cuts) We have shown in previous discussions about Statistics that the error is proportional to 1/Sqrt(Events) Will produce comparison plots of that constant of proportionality for next meeting, comparing estimates from G4MICE Grid simulations, Toy MC predictions, and John Cobb’s theoretical studies But the conclusion will be that we need O(10^5) muons to measure fractional change in emittance to an accuracy of 0.1% for most cooling beams