sphenix-maps-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: sPHENIX MAPS tracker discussion
List archive
Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force
- From: Gunther M Roland <rolandg AT mit.edu>
- To: "Rachid.Nouicer AT bnl.gov" <rachid.nouicer AT bnl.gov>
- Cc: "Chiu, Mickey" <chiu AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>, "Todoroki, Takahito" <todoroki AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>, "riken-intt-list AT ml.riken.jp" <riken-intt-list AT ml.riken.jp>, sphenix-maps-l <sphenix-maps-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, Molly Taylor <mitay AT mit.edu>
- Subject: Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:14:13 +0000
Dear Ming, Rachid,
On Sep 26, 2018, at 11:27 PM, nouicer <rachid.nouicer AT bnl.gov> wrote:
Dear Ming,
> To me, it seems 2-layer (or 3-layer for high efficiency) INTT already sufficient and preferred for better Upsilon resolutions.
To me, the same thing can be said for MVTX, I believe we only need two layers of MVTX layers. The third MVTX layer is onlyfor redundancy in case dead region. The MVTX total radiation length is already > 5% with three layers.
I believe it is too risky to have only two INTT layers, in case we have a dead region from beam blast. I don't agree with you thattwo INTT layers ALREADY sufficient!
I think if we take a conservative approach towards MVTX ( 5% radiation length) , three layers, I think we should take the sameapproach for INTT, three layers.
ATLAS/CMS have three layers for the intermediate tracker and two layers for inner tracker pixel/hybrid in the new upgrades.
Sincerely,
Rachid
On 09/26/2018 10:58 AM, Ming Liu wrote:
Hi Christof, Tony and all,What is the status of evaluating the impact of INTT on vertex seeding in high rate p+p/p+A collisions? It seems this is pretty much the last major item to be resolved to address the recent MVTX review committee’s recommendations:You have already made excellent progress with tracking simulations and showed that:
- For the global tracking, MVTX+TPC is already showing excellent rejection of pileups in pp collisions, INTT seems not contributing much for further rejection power.
- Tracking efficiency seems very similar for 2/3/4 layers of INTT.
- Di-electron mass resolution prefers less INTT layers (or less mass in general)
To me, it seems 2-layer (or 3-layer for high efficiency) INTT already sufficient and preferred for better Upsilon resolutions.Cheers,Ming--Ming Xiong LiuP-25, MS H846 TEL: 505-667-7125(Office)Physics Division 631-344-7821(BNL)LANL 630-840-5708(FNAL)Los Alamos, NM 87545 FAX: 505-665-7020From: sPHENIX-MAPS-l <sphenix-maps-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of Christof Roland <christof.roland AT cern.ch>
Date: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 7:21 PM
To: Jin Huang <jhuang AT bnl.gov>
Cc: Mickey Chiu <chiu AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>, sPHENIX-INTT <sphenix-intt-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, Sanghoon Lim <sanghoon.lim AT colorado.edu>, Molly Taylor <mitay AT mit.edu>, sphenix-maps-l <sphenix-maps-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, Takahiro Todoroki <todoroki AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
Subject: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task ForceHi Everybody,tomorrow we will have the next meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force.The indico page, bluejeans link and google doc can be found here:See you tomorrow!Christof_______________________________________________ sPHENIX-MAPS-l mailing list sPHENIX-MAPS-l AT lists.bnl.gov https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-maps-l
-- _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ / / Rachid Nouicer / / Physicist, Brookhaven National Laboratory / / Address: / / Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) / / Physics Department, Building 510c / / 20 Pennsylvania Avenue / / Upton, New York, 11973, U.S.A. / Phone: +1 631 344 8433 / E-mail : rachid.nouicer AT bnl.gov / Fax: : +1 631 344 3253/ Web:http://www4.rcf.bnl.gov/~nouicer / / / / /_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/__/_______________________________________________
sPHENIX-MAPS-l mailing list
sPHENIX-MAPS-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-maps-l
-
Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force
, (continued)
- Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force, Christof Roland, 09/07/2018
-
[Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force,
Christof Roland, 09/11/2018
-
[Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force,
Christof Roland, 09/18/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force,
Sanghoon Lim, 09/19/2018
- Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force, Ming Liu, 09/19/2018
-
[Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force,
Christof Roland, 09/25/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force,
Ming Liu, 09/26/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force,
nouicer, 09/26/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force,
Barbara Jacak, 09/26/2018
- Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force, Ming Liu, 09/26/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force,
Gunther M Roland, 09/26/2018
- Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force, Anthony Frawley, 09/26/2018
- Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force, Barbara Jacak, 09/26/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force,
Barbara Jacak, 09/26/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force,
nouicer, 09/26/2018
- Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force, nouicer, 09/26/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force,
Christof Roland, 09/26/2018
- Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force, Ming Liu, 09/26/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force,
Ming Liu, 09/26/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force,
Sanghoon Lim, 09/19/2018
-
[Sphenix-maps-l] Next Meeting of the Inner Tracker Task Force,
Christof Roland, 09/18/2018
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.