sPHENIX EMCal discussion

[Zhaozhong Shi <zzshi AT mit.edu>]

Hi Anne,

I totally agree since the uniformity studies in MC also agree quite well with the data. Thank you very much!

Sincerely,

Zhaozhong Shi

-------------------------------------------

NSF GRFP Fellow

MIT Physics PhD Candidate

Building 24-407

77 Massachusetts Avenue, 

Cambridge, MA 02139

zzshi AT mit.edu

-------------------------------------------

---

From: Sickles, Anne M <sickles AT illinois.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 11:40 AM
To: woody AT bnl.gov
Cc: Rinn, Timothy Thomas; Zhaozhong Shi; sphenix-emcal-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: Re: [Sphenix-emcal-l] New Uniformity Studies Results with Tim's Simulation Setup

 

Hi Craig and all,

My understanding (thanks to Tim for reminding me) is that the previous light-collection efficiency didn’t take into account the 4 SiPMs but rather took the entire readout face of the light-guide and coupled it to an PMT.  In that case the new efficiency, which brings the MC closer to the data, is clearly more correct.  In that case, I would suggest that we move forward with the paper using this updated MC comparison.

Do people agree with that?

Best,

Anne

---------------------------------------------------------

Anne Sickles

Associate Professor

University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign

sickles AT illinois.edu

---------------------------------------------------------

On Jan 14, 2020, at 6:27 AM, Craig Woody <woody AT bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Tim,
  Ok. That would explain it. Thanks for going back and pulling up the data. It all makes sense now.

Cheers,
Craig

On 1/13/2020 6:15 PM, Rinn, Timothy Thomas wrote:

Hi Craig,

 

I have pulled in the correct emcal mailing list into this conversation, it was previously sending to an incorrect address.

 

With regard to your question, as far as I can tell we have significantly more non-uniformity in the light guide collection with the new scan compared to the old one, see the attached slide. This is why we are seeing the sharper distributions and larger non-uniformity in the simulations than in the old simulations.

 

Tim

 

From: Craig Woody <woody AT bnl.gov> 
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 2:38 PM
To: Zhaozhong Shi <zzshi AT mit.edu>; sphenix-emcal-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov
Cc: jhuang AT bnl.gov; Rinn, Timothy Thomas <trinn AT illinois.edu>
Subject: Re: New Uniformity Studies Results with Tim's Simulation Setup

 

Hi Zhaozhong,
  I guess the fact that the uniformity of the new simulation got slightly worse does explain why the agreement between the data and the MC at high momentum in Anabel's new plot that we saw on Friday got better (i.e., the constant term got worse), but I thought Sean said that the new light collection map was actually more uniform than the old one. Maybe I'm just remembering that wrong, but if that's the case, then I don't understand how the uniformity in the MC got worse. Maybe Sean can correct me on this.

Thanks,
Craig 

On 1/13/2020 2:34 PM, Zhaozhong Shi wrote:

​Dear EMCAL Specialists, 

 

I ran Tim's new simulation file and got some new results. As expected, the uniformity has become slightly worse but it seems like the agreement between MC and data has not got better. I attach my slides in this email. Any comment or suggest will be welcome! Thank you very much!

 

Sincerely,

Zhaozhong Shi

 

 

-------------------------------------------

NSF GRFP Fellow

MIT Physics PhD Candidate

Building 24-407

77 Massachusetts Avenue, 

Cambridge, MA 02139

zzshi AT mit.edu

-------------------------------------------

 

_______________________________________________
sPHENIX-EMCal-l mailing list
sPHENIX-EMCal-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-emcal-l