Radiation Monitoring

Speaker : Howard M.


Talk time : 00:45, Duration : 00:20

AOB


Talk time : 00:50, Duration : 00:10

SSD Hardware

Speaker : Micheal


Talk time : 00:40, Duration : 00:10

MimoSTAR 3 Testing

Speaker : Collin


Talk time : 00:30, Duration : 00:10

Pixel Electrical

Speaker : Leo


Talk time : 00:20, Duration : 00:10

IHPC Meeting


Talk time : 00:05, Duration : 00:05

PIXEL Mechanical

Speaker : Howard W.


Talk time : 00:10, Duration : 00:10

News

Speaker : Hans Georg/Flemming


Talk time : 00:00, Duration : 00:10

HFT-Software

2008-08-29 13:30
2008-08-29 14:30
Etc/GMT-5
Friday, 29 August 2008
510-4867333, at 17:30 (GMT), duration : 01:00

TBD

TimeTalkPresenter
13:30Lc update + material for CDR ( 00:15 ) 1 fileJan Kapitan
13:45B decay simulation update ( 00:20 ) 1 fileQuan Wang

01 statistical analysis of 2008 HV

Under:

 Goal: study eta dependence of 2008 BTOW HV


Fig 1 Eta-phi distribution of HV

Run 8 BTOW Calibration (2008)

Under:

 2008 BTOW calibrations 

  1. BTOW HV used in 2008 are in the file »

Isolation cut, rejection and efficiency versus cut value

Abstract:  We show what isolation cut is needed to obtain a given pi0 rejection power in each pT bin.
 

1.0 MC Event Sample

  1. Pythia event sample (pibero's gamma trees) w/ proper weighting for partonic pT bins
  2. No offline trigger simulation
  3. full EEMC acceptance

2.0 Definition of Isolation Cut

We use an isolation cut, which consists of correcting the ET of the tower which contains the photon candidate based on the position of the candidate within the tower, and dividing that corrected ET by the sum of all towers w/in R < 0.3.  The following links summarize the method.
  1. See You do not have access to view this node for definition of the 1-tower isolation cut and evaluation of rejection versus efficiency based on pythia events.
  2. See You do not have access to view this node for data vs MC comparison, including trigger simulation.
The links above show plots of rejection power vs. efficiency.  It is informative to plot rejection vs. applied cut, and efficiency vs. applied cut.  See figure 1 below.
 
Figure 1 -- Rejection power (red) or photon efficiency (black) vs. isolation cut.
 

2008.08.19 Shower shape from pp2008 vs pp2006 data

Ilya Selyuzhenkov August 19, 2008

Data sets:

20080819_ppSet20080819_pp08__40stripsPP08_showerShapes_meanE_vStrip_noPt1CutnoPt2Cut_noPi0Cuts_scalePeak_logy

20080819_ppSet20080819_pp08__40stripsPP08_showerShapes_meanE_vStrip_noPt1CutnoPt2Cut_noPi0Cuts_scalePeak_logy

20080819_ppSet20080819_pp08__40stripsPP08_showerShapes_meanE_uStrip_noPt1CutnoPt2Cut_noPi0Cuts_scalePeak_logy

20080819_ppSet20080819_pp08__40stripsPP08_showerShapes_meanE_uStrip_noPt1CutnoPt2Cut_noPi0Cuts_scalePeak_logy

20080819_ppSet20080728_pp06l2g__40stripsPP06_showerShapes_meanE_vStrip_noPt1CutnoPt2Cut_noPi0Cuts_scalePeak_logy

20080819_ppSet20080728_pp06l2g__40stripsPP06_showerShapes_meanE_vStrip_noPt1CutnoPt2Cut_noPi0Cuts_scalePeak_logy

20080819_ppSet20080728_pp06l2g__40stripsPP06_showerShapes_meanE_uStrip_noPt1CutnoPt2Cut_noPi0Cuts_scalePeak_logy

20080819_ppSet20080728_pp06l2g__40stripsPP06_showerShapes_meanE_uStrip_noPt1CutnoPt2Cut_noPi0Cuts_scalePeak_logy

Update on PWG restructuring - Committee Report

geometry used in Simulation (plain) vs. Embedding

Geometry used in simulation/embedding for hits projection

For embedding with SSD, we project GEANT hits on real geometry.

Final Data Plots

 The following plots are for data.