[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FCAL test
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Matthew Shepherd wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 16, 2007, at 11:57 AM, Elke-Caroline Aschenauer wrote:
>
> > I'm not completely sure I can exactly follow your argument.
> > If I have bigger blocks like the ones from Hermes 9*9*45cm^3 I contain
> > more of the shower in one block, I need to take this into account
> > in my shower
> > algorithm, but that should be possible. Do I miss something.
>
> The problem with the blocks is not that they are bigger, but that
> they are not a precise integral multiple of the current block
> dimension. By construction this means it will introduce gaps either
> in the boundary of the surrounding blocks or elsewhere in the array.
> By removing blocks from the array one only creates holes that are
> very precise multiples of 4 cm. What goes in those holes (other
> blocks, supports, etc.) must match the dimensions exactly or else it
> will create gaps in the stacking of the rest of the array.
>
Ah, okay now I got it.
I guess if we look around we can find similiar block sizes just more
radiation hard, the hermes blocks are just an example and are in principle
free. Also as david pointed out we can if needed find a slightly different
arrangement.
> > Actually Beni, what did you calculate from the radphi data how many
> > days
> > does it need till the blocks are completely blind. Of course all of
> > this
> > has to be folded with the phase space of photons from pi0 we are
> > interested in.
>
> I think this step is key. I know Beni has done this calculation that
> basically shows days-weeks before damage is noticeable. I believe on
> the page I sent Richard estimates a block half life near the beam
> hole of about 800 hours. We need to check all of these. Maybe one
> way to do this is run side by side geant simulations with GlueX and
> RadPhi geometries. We could then use these simulations to estimate
> how to scale RadPhi experience to GlueX.
that might be a very nice thing to do.
>
> > May be all of this is not a serious problem as the dose
> > should drop with 1/r.
>
> I believe the drop is much faster than 1/r.
>
that would be very suprising wouldn't it
> > But I think we really want to look into more detail
> > in this, because it means we have an energy dependent gain, this
> > can in
> > principle be calibrated out if you have a gain monitoring system
> > along the
> > length of the blocks and with different wave length. But that is a
> > complicated one and gain monitoring systems which measure absolute are
> > very very complicated and expensive.
>
> We will have gain monitoring along the length of the blocks.
> Absolute transmission is not as important as relative transmission.
> Past experience I believe shows the proposed system does a great job
> at uniformly illuminating the front of the blocks to get good
> relative transmission. We need to think about the wavelength
> dependence though.
I agree we don't need an absolut transmission measurement, but we need the
absolut gain vs wavelength as I said above. Is there some document to read
about the proposed system, I have heard different things what is proposed.
Cheers elke
>
> > Matt could we put the whole thematics on one of the next calorimeter
> > meetings.
>
> This is a good idea.
>
> Matt
>
( `,_' )+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=
) `\ -
/ '. | +
| `, Elke-Caroline Aschenauer =
\,_ `-/ -
,&&&&&V Jefferson Lab +
,&&&&&&&&: HALL-D 12C / F381 121-A Atlantic Avenue =
,&&&&&&&&&&; Mailstop: 12H5 Hampton, VA 23664 -
| |&&&&&&&;\ 12000 Jefferson Ave +
| | :_) _ Newport News, VA 23606 Tel.: 001-757-224-1216 =
| | ;--' | Mail: elke@jlab.org Mobil: 001-757-256-5224 -
'--' `-.--. | +
\_ | |---' Tel.: 001-757-269-5352 =
`-._\__/ Fax.: 001-757-269-6248 -
+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+