[Moller_simulation] Moller Bi-weekly simulation meeting at 4pm tomorrow

[Paschke, Kent Dieter (kdp2c)]

Ok, so certainly that topic needs to be addressed (and I don’t see it on KKs list anywhere else).

But this particular item may actually refer to a different question.  I recall now that it was brought up in the systematics section in a different context - I think the non-electron scatterers didn’t have a clear idea of how one modified the generator to be useful for the question being asked.  So I think there was a “worry” that there would be Mott (or other backgrounds) that could reach the detector without going through the acceptance defining collimator.  We explained that for detector rate studies one tunes the generator for the spectrometer acceptance, and for other background studies one allows all interactions to proceed in GEANT.  I think there was concern that perhaps the backgrounds from beamline scattering weren’t accurately measured.  As I said, the question started from a point of confusion and I suspect this bullet reflects the fact that the confusion didn’t get resolved. 

Kent



> On Jan 19, 2017, at 3:45 PM, Michael Gericke <Michael.Gericke at umanitoba.ca> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I remember the Mott scattering issue being mentioned in the context of the PMTDD issue
> during the closeout. In particular with regard to having to have the full shielding implemented
> in the simulation in the detector region.
> 
> Michael
> 
> -- 
> Michael Gericke (Ph.D., Associate Professor)
> 
> Physics and Astronomy
> University of Manitoba
> 30A Sifton Road, 213 Allen Bldg.
> Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
> 
> Tel.: 204 474 6203
> Fax.: 204 474 7622
> 
> On 2017-01-19 2:58 PM, Krishna Kumar wrote:
>> If so, the text doesn’t make that clear. But it could well be that.
>> 
>>> On Jan 19, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Paschke, Kent Dieter (kdp2c) <paschke at virginia.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jan 19, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Krishna Kumar <krishna.kumar at stonybrook.edu> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Mott scattering in full MOLLER geometry (why has this been singled out?)
>>> Is this related to the Qweak polarization-sensitive detectors?
>>> 
>>> Kent
>>> 
>