sPHENIX EMCal discussion

[Craig Woody <woody AT bnl.gov>]

Hi John,
  This sounds like a good run plan to me. I think the energy scan with 
the combined detector is the most important thing, and if we can get 
that for both the instrumented and the Al Inner HCAL, that would be 
ideal. However, I would also strongly encourage us to get enough data in 
both of those configurations to measure our e/h rejection (which would 
be the enhanced statistics 4 and 8 GeV running that Jin was suggesting). 
This may be even more important with the Al IHCAL, since in that 
configuration, we won't have the instrumented IHCAL to back us up for 
e/h rejection. If it comes down to having to choose one energy or 
another due to time, I would emphasize the 4 GeV running since this is 
the nominal energy for the upsilon. Hopefully you're coming down the 
home stretch out there. This has been a heroic effort...

Cheers,
Craig

On 5/2/2018 11:01 PM, John Haggerty wrote:
> As I mentioned in the HCAL meeting today, we think we have finished 
> the EMCAL running we wanted on the 2c motion table, due to the efforts 
> of Eric, Martin, Songkyo Lee, and Debbie Israel, so tomorrow, we plan 
> to move the EMCAL and attach it to the steel version of the Inner HCAL.
>
> The short summary of the data sets are:
>
> > dual channeling position (Fri Apr 27 19:06:25 2018)
> >   - energy scan 1883-1954
> >   - position scan 1957-2043
> > sphenix+5 (Sun Apr 29 10:02:25 2018)
> >   - energy scan 2045-2167
> >   - position scan 2168-2263
> > sphenix (Tue May 1 17:57:48 2018)
> >   - position scan 2280-2360
> >   - energy scan 2361-still running
>
> During the day, we will be sharing time with T992.  I think they will 
> be running 120 GeV protons, so we can just let it record data in 100k 
> runs all day.  About 6pm, we'll go to an energy scan HCAL+EMCAL 
> running. Looking at the 2017 data sets, it looks like 400k events at 
> -4, -6, -8, -12, -16, -24, -28 would be the minimal data set we want.  
> We can take about 9k events/spill at energies where that is possible, 
> so 400k is about an hour at the higher energies.  If we have more 
> time, I would guess we would be best served getting higher statistics 
> at -4 and -8, although there are logistical problems getting the 
> Cerenkov pressures to where they need to be if we go high and then 
> want to go low. Also, we did comparable positive running last year; if 
> we want that again, we might want to reduce statistics to squeeze it 
> in, but my recollection is that it wasn't particularly illuminating. I 
> suggest we try to run for 12 hours up to Friday morning.
>
> Friday morning, Todd said he could help me crane the aluminum HCAL, or 
> HCAl, into place, we could do the 120 GeV thing during the day, and 
> again at 6pm switch to a copy of the energy scan only but with 
> aluminum in there.  I can finish that up Saturday before I leave on 
> Sunday morning if all goes well.
>
> Of course, plans can change due to various circumstances... but let us 
> know here if that sounds reasonable; the die is cast to move the EMCAL 
> early tomorrow, but we have until tomorrow night to settle on a run 
> plan for the EMCAL+HCAL energy scan.