sPHENIX HCal discussion

[Megan Connors <meganeconnors AT gmail.com>]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the update. The results look as expected. The PRs and photo of the bad tile is below.

I had a couple of comments/questions on your analysis.

-Slide 5 you say the "coating" was undone but you really mean the wrapping right, not that there is damage to the coating on the tile. The wrapping was removed at GSU to make the photo below.

-It's nice to be reminded of the B26 results but we should be careful comparing these since the fibers routing and tile shape are different. Was the B26 tile rescanned with your new SiPM set up?

-Since we really want to see how uniform the tiles themselves are, is there any way to subtract off the fiber so that the scale better reflects any potential changes in the tile?

GSU Measurement reminder:

Tile number         -PR        -MPV

•B25.2095.5867 -0.763476 -362.532

•B25.2042.5710 -1.35517 -615.12

•B25.2043.5712 -1.34392 -610.986

•B25.1229.3275 -1.09085 -507.248

I tried to paste the picture from Saif presentation (https://indico.bnl.gov/event/8781/contributions/38842/attachments/28960/44824/hcal_gsu_062320.pdf) below that shows the crazing at the bends.

Best,

-Megan

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 2:07 PM Christopher McGinn <chmc7718 AT colorado.edu> wrote:

Hello all,

This is a follow-up to the previously sent preliminary analysis of the underperforming HCal tiles that was previously sent to the list (and was discussed partially in the biweekly HCal meeting here: https://indico.bnl.gov/event/9090/). I've attached the final analysis, now correcting the scans taken incorrectly. Analysis shows 2/4 sent tiles have anomalously low light output when compared to the B26 tile sent for testing in March. Please let me know if you have questions or comments,

Chris

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