sPHENIX HCal discussion

[Craig Woody <woody AT bnl.gov>]

Hi John,
  The e/h for the whole calorimeter obviously depends on what EMCAL you 
put in front of the HCAL, and can often make e/h worse than just the e/h 
of the pure HCAL alone if the composition of the two calorimeters are 
very different (where might that occur..?). However, I would think 
something in the range of about 1.5 would be what you might expect.

Cheers,
Craig

On 9/18/2015 12:06 AM, John Haggerty wrote:
> While doing some writing on the pCDR, I was looking up some papers by
> Richard Wigmans, a prominent calorimeter expert (who visited with us
> early in sPHENIX history), which I put here:
>
> > https://www.phenix.bnl.gov/WWW/p/draft/haggerty/sphenix/calorimeter_papers/
> If you page through only one, look at
>
> > https://www.phenix.bnl.gov/WWW/p/draft/haggerty/sphenix/calorimeter_papers/wigmans_calor11.pdf
> which has good advice like
>
> > If one wants to make real progress in this field, it is imperative that 
> > scientific integrity be the guiding principle.
> in addition to a very clear telling of the history of compensation, and
> his evidence that you can make e/h = 1 by adjusting the sampling
> fraction. I couldn't find the exact reference for Fe/scintillator, but
> the plot of e/h here:
>
> > https://www.phenix.bnl.gov/WWW/p/draft/haggerty/sphenix/calorimeter_papers/Screen_Shot_2015-09-15_at_12.00.15_AM.png
> seems to be consistent with our experience, where the sampling fraction
> of the outer HCAL is about 3.5% and the inner is about 7% and we
> evidence for e/h in the ballpark of 1.3 to 1.6.