...
BA: wrt calculation of CalMipRatio, since the code is ultimately from me, the energy factor was simply determined to make the peak with muon runs to make 1. nothing fancy there. calcsirln is derived by tracing tracks to the cal and making equivalent rl path
EB: thanks, very useful
Need to edit notes below still LL
GSI analysis - Eduardo
This is preliminary work, I got some feedback from eric g which i Eric Grove, but I could not include it as i was away
2: motivation for this study: getting ready for leo and have limited tests for timing for cal triggers
gsi data are natural place to look at. hope this analysis will evolve into LEO analysis. hoèe hope to extend to other ion specieds
species. The main question is whether cal-le and cal-he behave as expected with C ions
3: so far analised 1 run only.
4: basic distributions, no cuts, will make simpe simple selections. will look at highest most populated trigger types (22 and 30)
5: middle plot is maxene in cal, bottom plot is the question, i.e. arrival time difference of between cal-lo - and cal-hi. this is expected to be negavitve, cal le cannot arrive before cal he
PB: blue is 22 (cal he on), red is 30 (cal he off), so do not understand middle plot
EDC: that is the max energy in a crystal when the cal for cal-le and cal-he triggered events
BL: it seems that blue and red are swapped
EDC: could be, will check offline (later confirms that these are swapped)
6: time arrival difference for different gem cuts
7: first column is all evts, middle row, condarrival toime column is evts with arrival time difference smaller than 10, right column is time difference for positive and high time arrival difference; middle row is condition arrival time for cal-lo, bottom row for cal-hi. second col,
8: same color code, top row is the same as from slide 7second and bottom row are scatter plots of calmaxene vs condition arrival time
EB: what do you know above about a priori timing between those guys?
EDC: inferring they are not different, but we do not know, will comment later
8: to get time by just multiply a tick by 50 nsec
9: the shoulder at 5-10 ticks , is from direct energy deposition in the diode en depositiojh, ususayl usually 5-10 ticks earleir earlier than peak deposit. these are expected . we did this with cal-lo and were measured by martin during IT, but could not do it with cal-hi as we had no too few events.
10: test this idea by looking at neighboring xtalssignal in nearby cal modeuls
11: twr 1 and twr3 cal-he triggers , twr2 triggersrequiring either cal-le, cal-he, both. please note once again the difference in x and y axis. the point is that there is abunh of evts taht
abundance of triggers in adjacent towers, so it should not be diode deposition
12: same as 11 but for cal-le
13: trying to point out what these events are from slide 7event display from evts with cal-he arriving before cal-he
15: another possible explanation - could it be the jitter (slide 9)? a jitter would be between 2 and 4 ticks, but it extends up to 10-12 ticks, so must be something else
eric argues that cal-lo should never be allowed to open the trg ewindoew window ...
LSR: could it be a skewing effect?
EDC: will check that, will talk offline.
LL: i recommend you look for clean evts, maybe cutting on tkr variables, as the instantenous rate is at GSI was much higher wrt avereageaverage, in particular at the beginning of the spill where the machine was delivering beam from other users and collimators were closing into our line
BL: i am not sure C events are the best for this study, as the average BL: avg non-interacting energy deposit for C ions is below cal-hi threshold. did you consider looking into cern events? we should have more handlkeshandles there, and we have external trigger too, so potentially you could extimate estimate timing wrt extern the external trigger
EDC: right, looking at cern data too, this just came earlier
BA: slide 8 middle plot is definitely strange as you sais: the energies are all>1GeV in a xtal, nothing to do with cal-lo events
EDC: must go back to and check, I might have swapped labels for cal-le and cal-he
BL: is there a schematicschematics of the trigger timing?
EDC: yes, I will provide that
LE simulations udpate
LL: francesco and carmelo are investigating the LE simulations presented last week, indeed there is a problem in the energy release for TKR and ACD, where recent LE simulations deliver twice the energy wrt standard glast physics. Will update as soon as we know more on this.
AOB
BA: what is the status of understanding tkr multiplicities? there is a variable that we use tkr1corhc) very important var in bkg rej, very much in background rejection it is called tkr1corehc and it very important that we have a good MC for that
LL: we will reevaluate TKR hit discrepancy, including that of tkr1corehc, once we generate simulations with the new BTRelease, and we are about to start that. we will perform also a dedicated background simulation run with extra hits in the simulation using the alignment bug in the simulation discovered and fixed by leon that seemed to provide more hits. we are also preparing a run with a modified tkr geometry (vacuum layer between SSD and tray facesheet) to test secondary delta rays propagation with a more realistic geometry (glue dots instead of an average density layer of glue)