FWD Software

["Brandenburg, James" <jbrandenburg AT bnl.gov>]

Hi All,

I was able to get the hits propagating correctly through this stripped down version of the geometry.

I've submitted a pull request with a minimum viable pentagonal geometry so that we can move forward while we figure out any remaining issues as we add back in the supports and other material.

See the PR here:

https://github.com/star-bnl/star-sw/pull/447

That leaves a few things:

1) Jason please comment about the bug in the material budget code - it would be helpful to make final material budget plots also for the NIM paper. 

2) Nicole, please take the geometry from my PR and try to add back whatever I removed (maybe do this little by little)

- Even with the material budget bug I found no mismatch between mother volumes vs sum of daughters - so you can still probably use that as an initial sanity check.

3) The next step will be to populate the misalignment tables with the survey data results

Let me know if you have any other thoughts. 

Best,

Daniel

On Nov 19, 2022, at 6:02 PM, videbaek <videbaek AT bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Daniel ,All

Thanks for looking into this. I think you are right about the bug/material assignment.
I look at Nicole's slide 5 and it may evne be about right for gas mixture being very small, except that there should not be a contribution from STMG (grey) as this is part if the master volume for the pentagon
shape (TUBS) that extend out of the true gas volume. It should be an assembly for the easy placement  (I csan but have not checked).

best Flemming







On 2022-11-19 17:24, Brandenburg, James wrote:

Dear Nicole, Flemming, All,
I spent some time investigating the sTGC geometry after the meeting /
Nicole's update.
1) My stripped down version (based on Flemming's) shows no overlaps
and no problems with gas, PCB, honeycomb etc.
2) The code for making material budget plots has a bug and the
material associated to each volume is incorrect. E.g. if I make the
gas material "Iron" the  PCB's material budget increases and the gas
does not. It appears complicated where the material actually shows up
but it is almost never in the  correct place.
About #1
Nicole, I suggest you carefully check your version against Flemmings
About #2
I thought Jason was aware of this and fixed it? I tried tests in DEV
with the same problem though.
Jason (cced) can you  comment? Is there a version of code with  this
fix available so that we can produce (correct) material budget plots?
Best,
Daniel

On Nov 18, 2022, at 4:03 PM, videbaek <videbaek AT bnl.gov> wrote:
Hi
Let me take another look. I am fairly sure there is no overlap
between the gas volume and the PCB volume in my file.. Nicole, did
you /could you try to use Daniels stripped down version of the
geometry?
I ahve not looked at your slides yet will do tomorrow, as I am in
the sPHENIX PD-4 review today
(on committee).
Flemming
On 2022-11-18 10:46, Brandenburg, James wrote:
Dear Nicole,
Thank you for this study. I agree with  you that it indicates some
issue with potential overlap between PCB and GAS. I will look into
this as I continue with my study of the hits in simulation.
Best,
Daniel
On Nov 18, 2022, at 8:19 AM, Lewis, Nicole <nlewis AT bnl.gov> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Here are some slides of the material budget of the sTGC gas:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/sTGC_Gas_Material_Budget.pdf.

After I implemented Flemming's comments (slides 2 and 3), there
were no changes to the gas's material budget.
I spent some time this yesterday playing around with eliminating
different detector components from the geometry and seeing how that
affected the gas's material budget.  When the gas is the only
component of the geometry, its material budget drops by over an
order of magnitude (slides 4 and 5).  And when I add back only the
PCB (the only component that is actually touching the gas), the
gas's material budget is exactly the same as when all other
components are included.  To me this implies that there is some
overlap between the gas and the PCB, but that does not make sense
given how everything is placed in the geometry file.
Thanks,
Nicole
[1]
-------------------------
From: Star-fwd-software-l
<star-fwd-software-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of
Brandenburg, James <jbrandenburg AT bnl.gov>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 12:28 PM
To: star-fwd-software-l AT lists.bnl.gov
<star-fwd-software-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: [Star-fwd-software-l] Fwd Software Meeting minutes
Thursday, November 17, 2022
Dear All,
Thank you for joining this morning. Below are the minutes for the
meeting this morning.
Best,
Daniel
Daniel: Updates
- PR adding FST data to StEvent and StMuDst accepted and merged into
DEV
- PR adding FCS WFF updates accepted and merged into DEV
- Working on  StFwdTrack Updates and ROOT geom from Jason's
directions (for tracking in BFC)
Gavin: Tracking Alignment
- Previous result showing consistency between full & MC tracking was
a book-keeping mismatch. Full Tracking DOES show difference compared
to MC Tracking. MC Tracking recovers correct parameters
- Daniel and Gavin will look into possible reason that Full tracking
leads to a bias
- Gavin will investigate the actual performance (pT res and charge
ID) for realistic alignment case
Daniel & Flemming: sTGC Geometry
- Flemming found and fixed several remaining overlaps in sTGC
geometry
- Daniel, based on suggestion from Flemming, removed all
non-essential parts of geometry
- move ahead with sTGC simulation and add supporting structures back
Nicole: sTGC Geometry
- Will make new material budget plots incorporating Flemmings
changes and send to list ASAP
Discussion of EPD efficiency and tracking check
- Isaac will begin with this topic as a step towards full analysis
- The goal here is to check if the EPD efficiency is reasonable
based on past estimates
- Second is to check how often EPD sees activity that is not
reflected by FWD tracking - check of FWD tracking efficiency with
minimal projection extrapolation needed
David: FCS WFF
- cross check of old vs. new algorithm
- Overall good agreement - need to check the reduced counts in pi0
peak
- Maybe due to cut of 1 GeV for clusters -> new algo may have
lower avg cluster energy
- Need to run an event-by-event comparison to understand why peak
is reduced while sidebands are not.
FCS Calibration:
- Individual calibrations are progressing. Xilin or another will
summarize results after thanksgiving.
Rough list of items for Dec 6th Meeting:
- Gavin: Alignment
- Te-Chuan: FST QA progress
- Nicole: sTGC geometry updates
- David: FCS WFF cross checks
- Xilin or another: FCS Calibration update
- Isaac: Initial progress on analysis (EPD efficiency or J/Psi
analysis)
- Xiaofeng: sTGC Timing studies
- Daniel: Tracking & Geometry updates
_______________________________________________
Star-fwd-software-l mailing list
Star-fwd-software-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fwd-software-l
Links:
------
[1]

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/sTGC_Gas_Material_Budget.pdf

_______________________________________________
Star-fwd-software-l mailing list
Star-fwd-software-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fwd-software-l

--
Flemming Videbaek
senior scientist, emeritus
videbaek @ bnl.gov [1]
Brookhaven National Lab
Physics Department
Bldg 510D
Upton, NY 11973
phone: 631-344-4106
cell     :  631-681-1596
Links:
------
[1] http://bnl.gov/

-- 
Flemming Videbaek
senior scientist, emeritus
videbaek @ bnl.gov
Brookhaven National Lab
Physics Department
Bldg 510D
Upton, NY 11973

phone: 631-344-4106
cell     :  631-681-1596