Aug 18, 2016 Calorimeter

From GlueXWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Video Conferencing Information

Meeting Time: 11:30 a.m.

  1. To join via a Web Browser, go to the page [1]
  2. To join via Polycom room system go to the IP Address: ( and enter the meeting ID: 907185247.
  3. To join via phone, use one of the following numbers and the Conference ID: 907185247.
    • US or Canada: +1 408 740 7256 or
    • US or Canada: +1 888 240 2560
  4. Upon connection all microphones are automatically muted. To unmute your mike on a Polycom or equivalent unit, enter *4. Unmuting on a computer is trivial as there is a microphone button than can be clicked.
  5. More information on connecting to bluejeans is available.

Participant Direct Lines

  • JLab Phone: in CC F326 is 757-269-6460 (usual room)
  • JLab Phone in CC L207 is 757-269-7084
  • Phone in the Regina Video-conference Suite is 306-585-4204
  • Athens Phone: in Christina's office is 011-30-210-727-6947


  1. BCAL Timing Calibration (Andrei): Media:Tcalib-meet-160818.pdf
    • Paul: do not use the BCAL in the RF determination to remove bias, although this probably will not affect things much.
    • Paul: DFOM cut may introduce a bias. The 0.5 pion cuts may be too tight; loosen them. Try DeltaT cut instead of DFOM with loose +/- 2ns cuts
    • Paul: Using Vertex is fine and for sure do not use t0.
    • Elton: slide 3 has path length times beta; should it not be divide by beta?
    • Paul: Simon has methods to correct for dE/dx in calorimeter and will send these to Andrei.
    • Andrei: it takes 5-6 iterations to converge so that the difference in variables is order 10^-3.
    • Andrei: function is not piecewise, just a simple sum of terms. X represents pulse peak after pedestal subtraction.
    • Andrei: no of neutrals is 4-5 times the no of charged events. Charged particles were used to start this procedure, due to historical reasons.
    • Question: what happens if the charged particles are removed from the procedure on slide 5?
    • Elton: would George's quadratic term remove some of the variation seen on slide 6?
    • Matt: decoupling theta and shower size from the procedure would be desired, if possible.
    • Elton: why is the resolution at theta=90deg not better (e.g. Hall B BCAL beam tests)? Andrei: t_res includes timing effects from whole system (BCAL, RF, tracks). Beam tests had e- going in at 90deg without TOF. t_res is not far from design specs on energy term; constant term is higher though. Due to SiPM noise?
    • Andrei: slide 12 key point: left plot has strong correlation => major contributor is cell size. Matt: islands seen in red plot although not as clearly as blue ones.
    • Andrei: lab coordinate system is used by new results, fADC ones, and George's.
    • Andrei: slide 15, top right plot shows valley between pions and protons, so PID is possible even at this level.
    • Sean: we would need to create a new table to accommodate the coefficients from Andrei's timing calibration.
  2. Concerns, issues to be addressed:
    1. Matt: having different v_eff for up and downstream is a concern, conceptually, as this is a physical property of the fibres. Can we use different techniques for position calibration and timing calibration?
    2. Sean: run this procedure through MC. Andrei: David Lawrence's full pulse handling has been removed from the MC, a while back. Matt: but Geant handles some of this. Andrei: Geant uses COG method, and does not use the edges of the shower cone, as our MC stands.
    3. Matt: zoom into the plots on slides 13 and 14. Systematic shifts are visible.
    4. Elton: will this presentation be turned into a document? Zisis: yes.
  3. Concerns send it later via email:
    1. Curtis: investigate base term in resolution being worse than expected.
    2. Curtis: can we explain the two effective speeds to an audience easily?
    3. Elton: for plots on slide 13 and 14 plot the difference vs position, e.g. pick the old z-coordinate and plot (Andrei - old) vs old and (George - old) vs old for both charged and neutrals.
    4. Sean: while the focus of this effort is on the precision time calibration using TDCs, if we are changing the parameterization of the effective velocities, is there a plan for how we would determine them for layer 4, which just has ADCs? This would primarily affect the clustering.
    5. Christina: slide 6 shows layer 2 only. What do the other layers look like?
    6. Christina: Can this effect be handled by two separate t-w functions instead of two effective velocities? Method works, but in an unphysical manner (same conceptual concern as Matt's above).


Attendees: Elton, Simon, Paul (Jlab); Matt (IU); Will, Curtis (CMU); Sean (NWU), George, Christina (Athens); Andrei, Tegan, Zisis (UofR)