Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sphenix-hcal-l - Re: [Sphenix-hcal-l] Question on 95% hadronic shower containment in HCal

sphenix-hcal-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: sPHENIX HCal discussion

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Lajoie, John G [PHYSA]" <lajoie AT iastate.edu>
  • To: Edouard Kistenev <kistenev AT bnl.gov>
  • Cc: "sphenix-hcal-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <sphenix-hcal-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
  • Subject: Re: [Sphenix-hcal-l] Question on 95% hadronic shower containment in HCal
  • Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 00:28:02 +0000

Hi Stefan, 

Isn't 100 GeV too high? Most of our jets will be below 30GeV, and I think we will run out of statistics above 50 GeV. 

John

On Feb 5, 2018 5:30 PM, Edouard Kistenev <kistenev AT bnl.gov> wrote:
10% approximation always looked fine to me



On Feb 5, 2018, at 3:23 PM, Stefan Bathe <bathe AT bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear All,

I find some inconsistencies with how many nuclear interaction lengths (lambda) are required to contain 95 % of the energy of a hadronic shower (L(95%)):

1) The CDR says 
L(95%) > 5.5 lambda 
in the introductory section of the HCal.  No energy is quoted.  So let’s assume 100 GeV pions as proxies for jets at kinematic limit for RHIC HI.

2) [WI00] (Fig 2.37, attached) gives 
L(95%) @ 100 GeV = 6.0 lambda
N.B.:  the reference is [AB81]!

3) [AB81] gives 
L(95%) @ 100 GeV: 87.5 cm Fe = 5.15 lambda (table 4)
contradicting Wigmans!

4) [HO78b] gives 
L(95%) @ 100 GeV: 82 cm Fe = 4.8 lambda (Fig. 10)

5) [KL91] gives
L(95%) @ 100 GeV: 82 cm Fe = 4.8 lambda (parameterization)

I’m inclined to dismiss Wigmans since the plot misrepresents the quoted reference.  Does anybody have better information?  Or maybe I’m misunderstanding something?

Regards,
Stefan

references:
[WI00] Wigmans, Calorimetry, Oxford, 2000” (p. 87, Fig. 2.37)
(see attachment)
--
[HO78b] M.Holder et al., Nucl.Instr.Meth.,151,69 (1978),
Performance of a Magnetized Total Absorption Calorimeter Between 15-GeV and 140-GeV
5 cm Fe sampling
L(95%) @ 100 GeV: 82 cm Fe = 4.8 lambda (from plot with data points and fit in paper; or parameterization in Kleinknecht textbook)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwju8M2mxY_ZAhWHyoMKHTAyAgQQFgg_MAQ&url="http%3A%2F%2Fcds.cern.ch%2Frecord%2F879171%2Ffiles%2Fep113_001.pdf&usg=AOvVaw18tk97fLX9RJZVIoNU1SVM
---
[AB81] Nucl.Instr.Meth.,180,429 (1981) 
The response and resolution of an iron-scintillator calorimeter for hadronic and electromagnetic showers between 10 GeV and 140 GeV
2 cm Fe sampling
L(95%) @ 100 GeV: 87.5 cm Fe = 5.15 lambda (table)
comments:
- interaction required in first 37.5 cm of iron; possible bias
- referenced in Wigmans, but I cannot reproduce Wigmans plot from data in paper
[KL92] "Kleinknecht, Detektoren fuer Teilchenstrahlung, Teubner, 1992”, I find the following parameterization:
L(95%) = [9.4 ln E(GeV) + 39] cm Fe.  With lambda = 17.1 cm (Fe)
also references [BL82] H. Bluemer, Diplomarbeit Dortmund, 1982



<Wigmans2.37.JPG>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan Bathe
Professor of Physics
Baruch College, CUNY

Baruch:                                     BNL:
17 Lexington Ave                      Bldg. 510
office 940                                  office 2-229
phone 646-660-6272                phone 631-344-8490
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page