[Tpe] Fwd: Re: simulation

[Will Brooks]

Hi,

  It looks like a great study.

  Another item worth considering to explore is the length of the 
collimator (unless you already did this). We are mainly interested in 
reducing the larger-angle tracks. If you're using a short collimator, it 
might be more effective to make a longer one (or two shorter ones).

  The conclusion on point 3 is difficult because of the statistical 
fluctuations. It may be higher priority to make two collimators of 
different diameters.

Thanks,

  - Will


On 6/7/10 2:41 PM, Larry Weinstein wrote:
> Dear TPE Folks,
>
> I need comments ASAP so Dave can order the materials.  There is a long 
> lead time for these.
>
> Here are the results of Dasuni's simulations for a) lead vs tungsten 
> for a 2 cm radphi-wall collimator, b) lead vs tungsten for the moller 
> catcher and c) different diameters for the radphi wall collimator.
>
> Two points about the table:
>  1) each line represents the results of 10 million incident 
> electrons.  You need to average the occupancies for each run type and 
> sum the lepton flux (last column).  This was done to gove us a better 
> idea of the statistical uncertainties in the results.
>  2) When comparing the radphi wall collimator diameters, you need to 
> normalize to the lepton flux (last column).
>
> My conclusions:
>  1) 2 cm is best for the radphi wall collimator.  1.8 cm is almost as 
> good.
>  2) tungsten is much better than lead for the radphi wall collimator
>  3) I am not sure whether we need tungsten for the Moller catcher
>
> Please comment ASAP.
>
> - Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tpe mailing list
> Tpe at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/tpe

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/tpe/attachments/20100607/1d85143f/attachment.html