[Moller_intdet] [EXTERNAL] Re: Integrating Detector meeting

[Juliette Mammei]

Dear all,

I agree with the idea that there is poor information exchange from the simulation meetings.

Here is what I have been expecting:  The simulation meeting should be attended by all students and postdocs who are or may do simulation work.  Simulation development and difficulties should be discussed there, and when changes should be pushed to git, etc.  Students pshould be doing "development " work on the simulation in addition to their particular investigations.

Results that are relevant to subsystems should be presented in those subsystem meetings when quasi-complete analyses are done.

In the way I have been expecting,  there would be no reason for engineers to attend simulation meetings, for example, and may in fact, be detrimental if there are simulation results that are not well-understood.

Students that are doing optics sims should present sim results in the tracking meetings.  Students (or postdocs) doing detector sims should report in the detector meeting.  Target, spectrometer etc in respective meetings.

If that is not what people want, then "what we want" should be better defined, and better communication from the simulation meeting to the subgroups needs to occur.  Right now I feel we are actually missing a venue for students to share sim results and ask questions,8 which is what I had expected the simulation meeting to be.

Thanks,

Dr. Mammei



Sent from my Galaxy



-------- Original message --------
From: Michael Gericke via Moller_intdet <moller_intdet at jlab.org>
Date: 2023-02-19 1:27 p.m. (GMT-06:00)
To: Krishna Kumar <krishna.kumar at stonybrook.edu>
Cc: moller_intdet at jlab.org, Robert Michaels <rom at jlab.org>, James Fast <jfast at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: [Moller_intdet] [EXTERNAL] Re: Integrating Detector meeting

********************************************************
Caution: This message was sent from outside the University of Manitoba.
********************************************************

Hi KK,

Where the background comes from is irrelevant. What matters is whether
it makes as signal in the detector.

Not all of us can call into every simulation meeting and the information
flow between these meetings is not working very well. So we are not
always aware of the most recent results
that come out of the simulations.

So please, to everyone:

If your simulation results suggest a new rate above threshold energy in
the detector or affect the detector in any way whatsoever, please at
least present a summary in the detector
meeting, if you can.

I leave it to the simulators to decide when they have something they
want to present in the detector meeting, but as far as the detector is
concerned I want to people to consider the
simulation meetings just as a starting point (for technical details
related to that) while the results should be presented in the detector
meeting.

Thanks,

Michael

On 2023-02-19 1:03 p.m., Michael Gericke wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The detector sees all events in the envelope, not just primaries. So,
> generally, if there is an increased background due to new geometry
> that enters the detector, the corresponding
> simulations and the implications should be discussed in the detector
> meeting.
>
> Of course, people should be able to present their work where they
> choose to, but if it is detector related or effects the detector
> design and the signal it sees in any way
> it would be preferable to have it presented in the integrating
> detector meeting, even for simulations. That way, we can also properly
> account for any event rate changes in the signal
> that would influence the electronics design etc.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael
>
> On 2023-02-19 12:22 p.m., Krishna Kumar wrote:
>> Hi, Folks. I was not able to attend Thursday's meeting but heard
>> about the tile geometry analysis update. I had a quick discussion
>> with Cip and Zuhal about it on Friday. We agreed that we need to
>> separate the analysis into two separate tracks:
>>
>> - In order to test the tile geometry and possible overlaps and gaps,
>> one must look only at primary particles from the target. This is
>> clearly an integrating detector meeting discussion to ensure the
>> geometry is doing what was intended in the detector plane analyses.
>>
>> - A separate issue is that there seems to be a surprising number of
>> secondary electrons above 1 MeV. It is clear from new plots that
>> these are not associated directly with the main high energy flux.
>> These should be reviewed separately and it is more of a simulation
>> meeting discussion.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> KK
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 16, 2023, at 2:02 PM, Michael Gericke via Moller_intdet
>>> <moller_intdet at jlab.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> This is a reminder that our regularly scheduled detector meeting
>>> will take place today, at 4:00 pm EST.
>>>
>>> The wiki link for the meeting is:
>>>
>>> https://moller.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/Int_Det_Mtg_230216
>>>
>>> If you have anything to present, please add it to the agenda.
>>>
>>> Please note that the zoom link has changed.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> Join Zoom Meeting
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ca01web.zoom.us_j_92766807065-3Fpwd-3DWDNPdTM3SW4wRTd3RHVWdWhWeGpkQT09&d=DwIFAg&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=n8yp2esm0KFRKpaGXzCWkswkaFnv92cJmpaE2yrYpV8&m=80ZtrYS2ajEnHAuah46y72a5UTbsXLEEmMDilBC752SIynWWvnp17dX2JwM3KHey&s=0hKmtmPZuNSn9Hp8ikDX2CXXW_qv-KBiyEnptc3yGLA&e=
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Moller_intdet mailing list
>>> Moller_intdet at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/moller_intdet
_______________________________________________
Moller_intdet mailing list
Moller_intdet at jlab.org
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/moller_intdet

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/moller_intdet/attachments/20230219/6839ceaf/attachment-0001.html>