Progress on the Xenon scattering paper.
Updated by Soler, Paul about 7 years ago
- File Xe_paper_v1.zip Xe_paper_v1.zip added
- File MCS-xenon-paper.pdf MCS-xenon-paper.pdf added
This is the first draft of the xenon scattering note, which will eventually become the xenon scattering paper. At the moment, all the figures are place-holders. John is running MAUS 2.0 on the data to extract better figures. However, the note so far explains the motivation for the analysis, a description of the detector, the beam and beam conditions, alignment of the trackers, the description of the analysis, including the unfolding and deconvolution steps, results and conclusion.
The steps of the analysis are as follows:
1) Use MILLIPEDE to perform a relative alignment of the two trackers. The MILLIPEDE procedure is described and the results of the tracker alignment are shown. This is essential to define the centre of the scattering distribution.
2) Beam selection and measurements of the raw scattering angles.
3) Unfolding of the scattering distribution for the detector response and detector efficiency.
4) Bayesian deconvolution to take into account the difference between the tracker scattering angles measured and the scattering angles at the absorber plane (takes into account tracker resolution and empty target runs).
5) Final results of distributions compared to GEANT4 and other models such as Moliere Z^2 and Moliere Z(Z+1).
Attached is a zip file with the latex code for the note and the PDF of the note. This is not for wide circulation yet, since all the plots need to be replaced and the analysis needs to be updated for the MAUS 2.0 data.
Updated by Rogers, Chris about 7 years ago
- File 1-alignment.jpg 1-alignment.jpg added
- File 2-muscat-scattering.jpg 2-muscat-scattering.jpg added
- File 3-mice-xd.jpg 3-mice-xd.jpg added
- File 4-mice-dtheta.jpg 4-mice-dtheta.jpg added
I had a productive shift with John Nugent - discussing his analysis, among other things. I wrote down some notes following the discussion, attached...
Updated by Cobb, John about 7 years ago
- File NoAbs-200.pdf NoAbs-200.pdf added
- File LiH-6p3-Windows-200.pdf LiH-6p3-Windows-200.pdf added
- File LiH-6p3-200.pdf LiH-6p3-200.pdf added
- File Xe-35-Windows-240.pdf Xe-35-Windows-240.pdf added
- File Xe-35-Windows-200.pdf Xe-35-Windows-200.pdf added
- File Xe-35-240.pdf Xe-35-240.pdf added
- File Xe-35-200.pdf Xe-35-200.pdf added
- File NoAbs-240.pdf NoAbs-240.pdf added
Added plots of 'XYZ' (aka Carlisle & Cobb) model scattering calculations for:
1) 35 cm of Xenon with / without windows at 200 and 240 MeV/c
2) 6.3cm of LiH with / without windows at 200 MeV/c
3) Windows (called 'NoAbs...') only at 200 and 240 MeV/c
i) "Windows" means a total thickness of 1.2 mm of Aluminium PLUS 3.3 mm of polystyrene scintillator.
The scintillator represents the first and last planes of the two trackers.
The Aluminium represents (best guess) at the combined thickness of all windows (2 He windows in the SSs and 4 safety/absorber windows
ii) I have assumed Li-6 in the LiH absorber with a density of 0.692
iii) No energy loss of the muons
iv) No spread in muon momentum
v) The rms projected angle for No absorber (windows alone) is ~ 10mr (200 MeV) and for Xenon alone is ~ 12 mr so there is substantial unfolding to do
vi) The rms values agree well with the PDG expression; I'd expect differences only for the lowest Z materials (LH2 or LiH)
vii) The angular resolution of the 2 trackers is a few mr and is not included