sPHENIX tracking discussion

[Thomas K Hemmick <hemmick AT skipper.physics.sunysb.edu>]

HI Tony

I agree that the separation of the "Performance" and the "Simulations" is artificial.  Once the parts are complete, as we re-organize the discussion to not jump between detector systems, we can also elimiiate the division between performance and simulations.

Tom

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Frawley, Anthony <afrawley AT fsu.edu> wrote:

Hi All,

Looking at section 4.3 (Detector Performance: Momentum and Mass Resolution) I have some comments:

First, it seems odd to have a section that is labeled "detector performance" that is separate from the section labeled "simulations" - which is where we evaluate the performance. This section seems to be focused on a discussion of detector performance issues - or perhaps trade-offs would be a better description. It seems to me that it would be better to relabel this section "Issues Governing Detector Performance" or something like that, and drop the simulation results from it.

Second, it invests a lot of effort in discussing analytic calculations of momentum resolution, etc. in a level of detail that does not seem to me to be necessary to make the (good) points that are made here.

Finally, the discussion of the silicon tracker does not use the current proposed configuration (see table 4.1 compared with table 4.3 (which I noticed is missing the outer layer)).

Cheers
Tony

_______________________________________________
Sphenix-tracking-l mailing list
Sphenix-tracking-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-tracking-l