[Erd108] [External] Re: Additional simulation request
Nikolai Smirnov
nikolai.smirnov at yale.edu
Sat Jul 20 16:27:12 EDT 2024
Dear Sourav, Kondo, and Matt.
It is nice that you are going to check carefully tracking - DIRC
performance in more details.
Previous experiments with DIRC included, demonstrate the result of the
performance in (0.65-0.7 till 5.4.- 5.5) GeV/c limits.
So. data for P<2. will be available, it can be very useful for a
cross-check with ToF data, and for e/h identification.
As you know the best EMCAL electron identification (E /P) started ~4.GeV/c.
So DIRC+ToF data can be crucial for smaller momentum, and (maybe) can be
used as a TRIGGER.
As Prakhar showed me the barrell setup, the R position of ToF is ~64 cm (
if I am not mistaken it was ~42 cm) and +/- 1.4 in rapidity..
Please check this simple arithmetics
Pt cut not to touch ToF = 0.3x1.7x0.64 = 0.33 GeV/c
It means Etha = 0. P (momentum) cut = 0.33
= 1. = 0.47
= 1.4 = 0.66
Now, check charge particle spectrum for different rapidiries from YR, and
point these values by pencil.
What will be your conclusion? What %% of particles will be without PiD?
Sourav, Thank you for your mail and phone message.
I hope to be on duty in a couple weeks.
Best regards, Nikolai.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 11:18 AM Sourav Tarafdar <stara at jlab.org> wrote:
> Dear Nikolai,
>
> Several questions just for clarification .
> What is the definition of high and low momentum ?
> What do you mean by ToF-R position is changed ? Changed from what to what
> ?
> How are you getting the number of 30% for unavailable particle ?
> I agree that magnetic field is unpleasant for particles of few hundred
> MeV but ToF has shown the capability of PID (e/pi) at less than 0.5 GeV in
> ePIC and as a reference here are the studies
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__indico.bnl.gov_event_17621_contributions_71751_subcontributions_2172_attachments_45491_76755_EPIC-5FTOF-5FSIM-5FCOLLAB.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=6nBhCQ9asnI7Gb72jBWQ4g&m=dNEN80LuFbYx4zYhK6bb_jAIeM_Zt6g72f74o0l3y2z_kqeq4IQv7x7WJW1ohYrR&s=wRM0l6ec4x1zpGxVoi2qlNlzSHXziojUAkvVBNxrAuA&e=
> Also Matt can correct me but if I recall it was the input by DIRC group
> that they need 0.5 mrad over the entire momentum range .Their simulation
> studies has only shown their PID capability for pi/K @ 6 GeV and not from 1
> GeV from where it is supposed to do PID (may be I am wrong but would like
> to get reference of detailed DIRC simulation studies).
>
> Last but not least, wish you all the best for recovering soon , so no rush
> to reply to my questions !
>
> Best regards,
> Sourav
>
>
> On Jul 18, 2024, at 6:59 PM, Nikolai Smirnov <nikolai.smirnov at yale.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Kondo, Matt, Sourav,
>
> Sorry that I am going once more to point something connected to PiD in
> barrell position.
> Most probably you discussed all these comments before.
>
> 0. For any tracking / PID performance the "start" point - particle
> momentum spectrums for different rapidities from the Yellow report should
> be on a "front of you position."
>
> 1. DIRC.
> -- The demand of 0.5 mrad tracking precision is a crucial factor for
> high momentum particle PID
> -- It can / should be absolutely different for low momentum particles.
> See Cherenkov angle as a function of momentum.
> -- But for low Pt the bending angle is an unpleasant factor.
> --- Scattering (as you know) is more crucial for low momentum.
> Check with a DIRC expert if it was not done earlier.
>
> 2. ToF R - position was changed.
> Please make a simple calculation and prepare for yourself the result -
> particle momentum cut (there is no chance to get PID) dure to 1.7T B-field
> as a function of the rapidity ( 0 -- 1,4), and check with P-spectrum.
>
> 3. And the same for DIRC and EMCAL.
>
> Are you sure that a declared Physics can be done if for ~30% of particles
> PID will not be available!?
>
> It was sent from a medical recovery facility - so, take corrections.
>
> Best regards, Nikolai.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 11:26 AM Kondo Gnanvo <kagnanvo at jlab.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sourav,
>>
>> What is motivating the discussion of ToF going to 5%?
>>
>> Kondo
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Sourav Tarafdar <stara at jlab.org>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2024 11:21 AM
>> *To:* Matthew Posik <posik at temple.edu>; Kondo Gnanvo <kagnanvo at jlab.org>;
>> Gnanvo, Kondo (kg6cq) <kg6cq at virginia.edu>; erd108 at jlab.org; Shyam Kumar
>> <shyam055119 at gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Erd108] [External] Re: Additional simulation request
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure, I don't care about MPGD resolution. I wanted to stop the discussion
>> of ToF going to 5% to further degrade the angular resolution from current
>> ~ 3.5 mrad and effectively making DIRC useless in low momentum region.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Erd108 <erd108-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Matthew Posik <
>> posik at temple.edu>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2024 11:13 AM
>> *To:* Kondo Gnanvo <kagnanvo at jlab.org>; Sourav Tarafdar <stara at jlab.org>;
>> Gnanvo, Kondo (kg6cq) <kg6cq at virginia.edu>; erd108 at jlab.org <
>> erd108 at jlab.org>; Shyam Kumar <shyam055119 at gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Erd108] [External] Re: Additional simulation request
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Kondo is correct, the MPGD resolution does not help DIRC PID due to
>> multiple scattering of the inner layers, even when the MPGD resolution is
>> 50um. Adding the CF support just worsens the resolutions. Additional
>> material will further worsen the angular performance.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt Posik
>>
>> Research Associate Professor
>>
>>
>>
>> Temple University
>>
>> Department of Physics
>>
>> SERC
>>
>> 1925 N. 12th St.
>>
>> Philadelphia, PA 19122
>>
>> USA
>>
>>
>>
>> TU Office: SERC Room 451
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Physics Office: SERC Room 406/4th Floor
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Erd108 <erd108-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Kondo Gnanvo <
>> kagnanvo at jlab.org>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2024 10:39 AM
>> *To:* Sourav Tarafdar <stara at jlab.org>; Gnanvo, Kondo (kg6cq) <
>> kg6cq at virginia.edu>; erd108 at jlab.org <erd108 at jlab.org>; Shyam Kumar <
>> shyam055119 at gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* [External] Re: [Erd108] Additional simulation request
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Sourav
>>
>> Ok, i will let Matt comment. My main point is whether good spatial
>> resolution MPGD helps achieving the angular resolution requirements at the
>> DIRC. It looks like even before including the CF material, we could not
>> satisfy this requirement even with a 50um MPGD, so
>>
>> - MPGD resolution does not help because multiple scattering of the
>> inner layers is dominant factor
>> - 0.5 mrad angular resolution requirements not met even before
>> considering CF support structure
>>
>> Maybe I am wrong though!
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Kondo
>>
>>
>>
>> Get Outlook for iOS
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aka.ms_o0ukef&d=DwMF-g&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=6nBhCQ9asnI7Gb72jBWQ4g&m=Z-rq14gh7Ttjl13bSSNowA51bG3bP9gYNSuO81dopADCTe22ggs-J-ULDN3iDrS8&s=kbTZMwFJyYZeS2fN3W3o1Z9pCSfmXtcmqXoRY937XgA&e=>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Sourav Tarafdar <stara at jlab.org>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2024 10:27:32 AM
>> *To:* Kondo Gnanvo <kagnanvo at jlab.org>; Gnanvo, Kondo (kg6cq) <
>> kg6cq at virginia.edu>; erd108 at jlab.org <erd108 at jlab.org>; Shyam Kumar <
>> shyam055119 at gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: Additional simulation request
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Kondo,
>>
>>
>>
>> Just during Monday simulation meeting Matt showed series of studies.
>> Slide 15 in Matt's presentation concludes the effect of CF affects the
>> angular resolution significantly, if I am not mistaken in final conclusion
>> during that presentation ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Sourav
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Erd108 <erd108-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Kondo Gnanvo <
>> kagnanvo at jlab.org>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2024 10:23 AM
>> *To:* Sourav Tarafdar <stara at jlab.org>; Gnanvo, Kondo (kg6cq) <
>> kg6cq at virginia.edu>; erd108 at jlab.org <erd108 at jlab.org>; Shyam Kumar <
>> shyam055119 at gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Erd108] Additional simulation request
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Sourav,
>>
>> The spatial resolution was already irrelevant even before considering the
>> CF material if i remember well from past studies.
>>
>> I don’t remember a simulation study that ever show any impact of MPGD
>> resolution on the angular resolution at the DIRC level
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Kondo
>>
>>
>>
>> Get Outlook for iOS
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aka.ms_o0ukef&d=DwMF-g&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=6nBhCQ9asnI7Gb72jBWQ4g&m=Z-rq14gh7Ttjl13bSSNowA51bG3bP9gYNSuO81dopADCTe22ggs-J-ULDN3iDrS8&s=kbTZMwFJyYZeS2fN3W3o1Z9pCSfmXtcmqXoRY937XgA&e=>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Erd108 <erd108-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Sourav Tarafdar <
>> stara at jlab.org>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2024 10:11:36 AM
>> *To:* Gnanvo, Kondo (kg6cq) <kg6cq at virginia.edu>; erd108 at jlab.org <
>> erd108 at jlab.org>; Shyam Kumar <shyam055119 at gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Erd108] Additional simulation request
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Kondo,
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought it was 3% Carbon fiber support structure causing multiple
>> scattering which was basically making spatial resolution of MPGD irrelevant
>> ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Sourav
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Gnanvo, Kondo (kg6cq) <kg6cq at virginia.edu>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2024 10:07 AM
>> *To:* Sourav Tarafdar <stara at jlab.org>; erd108 at jlab.org <erd108 at jlab.org>;
>> Shyam Kumar <shyam055119 at gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: Additional simulation request
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Sourav,
>>
>> It looks like the material budget already the dominant parameter for the
>> angular resolution study at the DIRC level so it seems very unlikely that
>> there would be any difference between 1% and 5% for the TOF layer
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Kondo
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Erd108 <erd108-bounces at jlab.org> *On Behalf Of *Sourav Tarafdar
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2024 9:55 AM
>> *To:* erd108 at jlab.org; Shyam Kumar <shyam055119 at gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* [Erd108] Additional simulation request
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all ,
>>
>>
>>
>> The request is mostly directed towards Matt and Shyam. I am wondering if
>> it is possible to quickly do additional study on angular resolution @ DIRC
>> location by increasing the material budget of barrel ToF from current 1.0%
>> to 5.0% ? There has been chatter about increasing the material budget of
>> ToF to 5.0% and before it takes a lead it will be good to know it's effect
>> . Based on results shown in the Monday meeting I suppose it will further
>> deteriorate angular resolution at DIRC. Also considering Shyam's method I
>> think the analytical simulation method by Shyam will be good enough if
>> DD4HEP sim is time taking.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Sourav
>> _______________________________________________
>> Erd108 mailing list
>> Erd108 at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/erd108
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/erd108/attachments/20240720/4670d993/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Erd108
mailing list