sPHENIX tracking discussion

[nouicer <rachid.nouicer AT bnl.gov>]

Dear Tony, 
 
We checked dead region between the two adjacent two active sensors' area; we found out that this due to the dead region of 1 mm in the edge of each sensor; 1 mm from active area to the edge of the sensor. This is a very conservative design sensor made by Hamamatsu company in Japan. 
 
To fix this issue, I would suggest, could you move the ladders of OUTER RADIUS for a given layer by 2 mm forward (or backward) in Z direction. In this case, the dead regions don't overlap for inner and outer ladders from the same layer. Could you try this in simulation and let us know if this helps? 
 
Thank you. 

 

Sincerely, 
Rachid  

On 08/29/2018 03:15 PM, Anthony Frawley wrote:

Hello Rachid,

We are still looking at the simulation results to understand this.

However I can make one comment. The sensor for ladder zero (L0) has a total length of 92 mm but an active length of 90 mm. For the 4 sensors in L0, this means there are 3 gaps, totaling 6 mm of dead material, inside the acceptance. That is 1.7% of the sensor area that is dead for each layer. For L1-3, there is 6 mm of dead length out of 464 mm, or 1.3% dead area per layer.

Cheers

Tony

---

From: nouicer <rachid.nouicer AT bnl.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 2:52 PM
To: Christof Roland; Anthony Frawley; sphenix-tracking-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: INTT acceptance in phi

 

Dear Tony and Christof, 
 
Fellowing our discussion during last general meeting about the INTT acceptance, we put some efforts to check the INTT acceptance, see attached file obtained directly from detector engineering design (we have more drawings). In our design, the INTT acceptance is 100%. We found out that it is very difficult to understand on how you end up with 92% acceptance in phi as you reported in the meeting. The particle has to go at least through three layers, even if the particle has very low momentum. Could you check the INTT geometry in simulation to make sure  that we have the correct coverage in phi, hardware conceptual design and software geometry should be the same? 

If you can give us some feedback on how did you get 92% acceptance in phi, we can work on improving the design. 
 
Thanks. 
 
Sincerely, 
Rachid   

 

-- 

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
                                               /                        /
 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 /                        /
                                     /                        /
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/__/