Difference between revisions of "SoLID Ecal Weekly 20230727"
From solidwiki
(Created page with "==SPD Timing discussion== *Carter showed his slides from previous week. SC_C - SC_D seems reasonable. See comparison table at [https://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/PVDIS/SoLI...") |
(→Rate data/sim discussion) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
**Mike will check with Jixie on the code and technical note availability. The note should contains the 2 simpler options (fixed vs. dynamic pedestal subtraction, no deconvolution). Perhaps co-writing the note? | **Mike will check with Jixie on the code and technical note availability. The note should contains the 2 simpler options (fixed vs. dynamic pedestal subtraction, no deconvolution). Perhaps co-writing the note? | ||
*Ye showed 10uA run comparison throughout the 18-deg run period and the MIPs remained stable | *Ye showed 10uA run comparison throughout the 18-deg run period and the MIPs remained stable | ||
| − | *Jixie's pedestal study (on redmine) is without beam. | + | *Jixie's pedestal study (on redmine) is without beam. Checking the run plan, it looks like on Jan.12th we talked about checking the pedestal shifts with beam on, but the run list doesn't show any run for this purpose. Thinking about it, checking the pedestal (baseline) shift with beam on would require careful analysis, and what we are doing now is (perhaps?) exactly what was planned to do. |
*Ye showed SC-B pulses and it had significant higher rates and baseline shift than front scintillators. (SC-B had no beam-side shielding.) THis is okay if we want to cut on half-MIP, just need to shift the MIP position accordingly. | *Ye showed SC-B pulses and it had significant higher rates and baseline shift than front scintillators. (SC-B had no beam-side shielding.) THis is okay if we want to cut on half-MIP, just need to shift the MIP position accordingly. | ||
*For longer term we need to simulate pulse shape in SoLID full sim. This will give us: baseline shift, timing, etc. | *For longer term we need to simulate pulse shape in SoLID full sim. This will give us: baseline shift, timing, etc. | ||
Revision as of 17:45, 27 July 2023
Contents
SPD Timing discussion
- Carter showed his slides from previous week. SC_C - SC_D seems reasonable. See comparison table at SPD page, 2nd table from top. Note that HRS S2 was 50mm thick and had ~300ps resolution. Scale by 1/sqrt(Npe) or 1/sqrt(thickness) we expect 474ps for the 2-cm thick scintillators we are using. (This also means our PMT might have better "Transient Time Spread(TTS)" than the S2 PMTs.
- For LASPD timing, should plot (T+B)/2 minus another scintillator.
- Mike will post PMT information soon
Rate data/sim discussion
- from previous week, it was obvious that MIP for Shower shifted to higher values for high rate runs. Pulse deconvolution might help
- Mike will check with Jixie on the code and technical note availability. The note should contains the 2 simpler options (fixed vs. dynamic pedestal subtraction, no deconvolution). Perhaps co-writing the note?
- Ye showed 10uA run comparison throughout the 18-deg run period and the MIPs remained stable
- Jixie's pedestal study (on redmine) is without beam. Checking the run plan, it looks like on Jan.12th we talked about checking the pedestal shifts with beam on, but the run list doesn't show any run for this purpose. Thinking about it, checking the pedestal (baseline) shift with beam on would require careful analysis, and what we are doing now is (perhaps?) exactly what was planned to do.
- Ye showed SC-B pulses and it had significant higher rates and baseline shift than front scintillators. (SC-B had no beam-side shielding.) THis is okay if we want to cut on half-MIP, just need to shift the MIP position accordingly.
- For longer term we need to simulate pulse shape in SoLID full sim. This will give us: baseline shift, timing, etc.
PID classical method by Spencer
- Spencer's slide
PID ML method by Darren
- Darren's slide
