2016-11-22-straight-tracks-paper » History » Version 6
Rogers, Chris, 23 November 2016 14:03
1 | 1 | Rogers, Chris | h1. 2016-11-22-straight-tracks-paper |
---|---|---|---|
2 | |||
3 | 6 | Rogers, Chris | h2. Details |
4 | |||
5 | Tuesday 22nd November at 15:00 and continued on Wednesday 23rd November at 14:00. |
||
6 | |||
7 | 1 | Rogers, Chris | http://mice.iit.edu/phonebridge.html |
8 | 2 | Rogers, Chris | |
9 | Note: |
||
10 | |||
11 | http://mice.iit.edu/micenotes/public/pdf/MICE0497/MICE0497.pdf |
||
12 | 3 | Rogers, Chris | |
13 | h2. Notes |
||
14 | |||
15 | Present: |
||
16 | |||
17 | John Cobb |
||
18 | Paul Soler |
||
19 | Mariyan Bogomilov |
||
20 | Chris Rogers |
||
21 | Alan Young |
||
22 | Ryan Bayes |
||
23 | |||
24 | h3. Page 1 |
||
25 | |||
26 | First three comments may be more appropriate for the paper rather than the MICE note |
||
27 | * Should defend choice of Xenon |
||
28 | * Should define symbols in emittance formula |
||
29 | * Should define equilibrium emittance |
||
30 | |||
31 | # "Thus, despite the limited angular range it is extremely attractive as a direct measure of the |
||
32 | scattering of muons" Need to add some more quantitative discussion of angular acceptance. |
||
33 | |||
34 | h3. Page 2 |
||
35 | |||
36 | # Table 1: Row for Al numbers are suspect - correct |
||
37 | # Table 1: General comment that some description of the material budget is required; how much material and where? |
||
38 | # Table 1: In similar vein, some description of absorber is necessary |
||
39 | 4 | Rogers, Chris | # Scattering angle definitions eqn (3) and (4) are not correct - see supplementary note from JHC attachment:Projected-angles.pdf |
40 | 3 | Rogers, Chris | # Correction @theta = \sqrt(<theta_scatt>)@ should be @theta = \sqrt(<theta^2>)@ |
41 | # There was some discussion over the use of a Gaussian fit, as mentioned in final sentence of 1.1. Comment that the description would be better in the "analysis" section where the relevant measurements and plots are listed. |
||
42 | # 0.0038 should be 0.038 |
||
43 | # Comment that section 1.2 needs a lot of work; it was not reviewed in detail. |
||
44 | |||
45 | h3. Page 3 |
||
46 | 5 | Rogers, Chris | |
47 | # "deviation between data and simulation": some discussion over this comment. Which direction is "South"? Why does beam offset introduce bias? |
||
48 | ** Beam offset causes clipping, which is a bias |
||
49 | ** the 4 cm shift is in MC |
||
50 | ** It is a bias in the simulated measurement, not in the data itself |
||
51 | |||
52 | h3. Page 4 (Fig. 1) |
||
53 | |||
54 | # Be explicit that this is MC through a "bare absorber" |
||
55 | # Why is the Geant4 MC of Xenon so weird - e.g. asymmetric? |
||
56 | ** Ryan is not sure and will (continue to) dig |
||
57 | # Why is the Cobb-Carlisle MC of Xenon so weird (e.g. thick)? |
||
58 | ** JHC will dig |
||
59 | |||
60 | h3. Page 5 |
||
61 | |||
62 | No comment |
||
63 | |||
64 | h3. Page 6 |
||
65 | |||
66 | # Some discussion of the cuts and rate accounting |
||
67 | 6 | Rogers, Chris | ** Timing selection is a very small time bin, e.g. 200 ps over the few ns width of the muon peak |
68 | ** Fiducial selection is a 300 mm diameter tracker over a 5 m drift length |
||
69 | ** Need to add some description of the basic geometry |