sPHENIX HCal discussion

[Darren McGlinchey <Darren.McGlinchey AT Colorado.EDU>]

Hi All (sphenix-hcal-l only),

I've done a read through of the HCal chapter as printed off the Overleaf site yesterday (Oct 20) morning. Today I made a number of grammatical changes on Overleaf as suggested by John H. I also have a number of more substantial comments below.

Thanks.

-Darren

-- General comments --

1) I think the chapter would benefit from a brief introduction prior to jumping directly into section 6.1: Physics Requirements Overview. A simple introduction of what will be discussed in the chapter would help to focus the reader.

2) I think the chapter would benefit greatly form a conclusion section that summarizes where the design currently stands, and what has yet to be decided.

3) There are a number of places where results are presented but no concise conclusions are drawn in the text. Having a sentence stating what is learned, particularly for each figure, is very helpful.

-- Specific comments --

Sec 6.2) This section reads like a complete re-statement of the preceding section. I would remove this section entirely. The introduction to the Detector Design (sec 6.3), already does the job of giving an overview.

Fig 6.1) The right hand sub-figure is cut off at both the bottom and right sides. It needs to be scaled to match the left sub-figure.

Sec 6.3.3) This section could be expanded upon. There is very little text, with two paragraphs composed of one sentence each. Some detail about the flux return and electronics placement could be added, or simply make the section a single short paragraph.

Fig 6.4) Needs a caption. This figure, and a number of others in this section, are very blurry when printed on paper.

Sec 6.4) I recommend dropping the subsection 6.4.1, unless there is a plan to add a section on other simulations. Then the subsubsections of 6.4.1 can be promoted to subsections, making them easier to distinguish from the text.

Sec 6.4.1 Paragraph #2) The reference needs to be added to the bibtex file and \cite{}'ed here.

Sec 6.4.1 Paragraph #3) The ordering here is a little clunky. I would reorganize to say that energy deposited in the absorber is recorded, and the energy of tracks reaching a layer 10 cm outside the HCal is also recorded. The sampling fraction can then be calculated with these two pieces of information.

Sec 6.4.1 Paragraph #4) Single particle simulation parameters are described here, but it's not clear what they are used for. Are these the same single particle simulations described in the next section?

Fig 6.17) I don't see this figure referenced anywhere in the text.

Sec 6.4.1 HCal Dynamic Range) What is the maximum energy deposited? Is the dynamic range of the amplifier and digitizer sufficient?

Sec 6.5.1) It would be useful to be more specific about some of the conclusions from the figures here. In the comparison with simulation, what does it mean that the hadron resolution is similar but the electron resolution is not? What does it mean for the HCal moving forward?

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

Darren McGlinchey

University of Colorado, Boulder

darren.mcglinchey AT colorado.edu
----------------------------------------------------

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 7:00 AM, John Haggerty <haggerty AT bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello,

I put version 0.99 of the sPHENIX Pre-Conceptual Design Report on an
Indico page here:

> https://indico.bnl.gov/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1483

(the pCDR link) which should be accessible to PHENIX and non-PHENIX
alike.  There is still work going on to complete the document, but the
hard deadline is to have it complete for the review committee two weeks
in advance, on Monday, October 26.  PHENIX tradition is a one week
comment period which will be up next Saturday (October 24), but the
sooner comments can be received and acted upon by the many authors and
editors, the better, so if you could make comments and corrections by
Thursday, that will give us more time to finalize the TeX and clean up
any figures that still need cleaning up.

I would like to try crowdsourcing the small grammatical corrections that
take a lot of time in finalizing a  document like this from many
authors--if you see small changes in working that are needed, try fixing
them on the Overleaf site itself:

> https://www.overleaf.com/2657127qghjbm

This document has really been a collaborative effort, with writing,
editing, figures, simulation, and engineering from a large and diverse
group of people who have come together around this proposal, and it's
gratifying to see it come together.  It has always impressed me how
PHENIX comes together to get a job done, and it looks like sPHENIX is
following that example.

--
John Haggerty
email: haggerty AT bnl.gov
cell: 631 741 3358
_______________________________________________
Sphenix-physics-l mailing list
Sphenix-physics-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-physics-l