Difference between revisions of "April 22, 2015 Calibration"
(→Agenda) |
|||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
#* Calibration Progress | #* Calibration Progress | ||
#* Resolutions / Efficiencies | #* Resolutions / Efficiencies | ||
| + | # Simulations | ||
| + | #* 5.5 GeV simulations | ||
| + | #* [[mcsmear updates]] | ||
| + | #[https://halldweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/March_25,_2015_Calibration#Proposed_Spring_Plans Spring Calibration Plans] | ||
| + | # Normalization | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Minutes == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Attending: Sean, Simon, Adesh, Lubomir, Justin, Paul, Eugene, Will M., Beni, Alex, Eric, Elton, Mike S., Luke, Kei (JLab); Curtis (CMU) | ||
| + | |||
| + | === FCAL === | ||
| + | |||
| + | Adesh reported that not much progressed had been made. The major current puzzle is that when looking at showers due to electrons, although the overall cluster energy has a resolution ~10%, the individual block energies have resolutions of ~30%. They have made progress in determining the efficiencies of showers due to electrons, but are held up with this problem. Will M. has agreed to look at the pi0 minimization procedure, based on his experience with using it for the BCAL. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === BCAL === | ||
| + | |||
| + | Elton reported that the efficiencies depend on many variables, including how different types of hits are treated and which layer is being looked at. These issues are a major current focus. Another recent major effort was developing better running conditions. These include variable fan speeds on the crates (h/t Mark Dalton), running at a lower temperature (10 degrees down from 18 degrees), and a higher over-voltage (1.4V versus 1.0V). Will M. is looking for eta -> gamma gamma decays, since none have been seen yet so far in the fall data. He is looking at the data and simulations to determine the prospects for measuring this. It was also suggested that the characterize the pi0 reconstruction performance over a wider energy range. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === CDC === | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
# Simulations | # Simulations | ||
#* 5.5 GeV simulations | #* 5.5 GeV simulations | ||
Revision as of 15:02, 22 April 2015
GlueX Calibration Meeting
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
11:00 am, EDT
JLab: CEBAF Center, F326
Connection Using Bluejeans
- To join via Polycom room system go to the IP Address: 199.48.152.152 (bjn.vc) and enter the meeting ID: 630804895.
- To join via a Web Browser, go to the page [1] https://bluejeans.com/630804895.
- To join via phone, use one of the following numbers and the Conference ID: 630804895
- US or Canada: +1 408 740 7256 or
- US or Canada: +1 888 240 2560
- Upon connection all microphones are automatically muted. To unmute your mike on a Polycom or equivalent unit, enter *4
- More information on connecting to bluejeans is available.
Agenda
- Announcements
- Collaboration Meeting
- Subdetector Reports
- Calibration Progress
- Resolutions / Efficiencies
- Simulations
- 5.5 GeV simulations
- mcsmear updates
- Spring Calibration Plans
- Normalization
Minutes
Attending: Sean, Simon, Adesh, Lubomir, Justin, Paul, Eugene, Will M., Beni, Alex, Eric, Elton, Mike S., Luke, Kei (JLab); Curtis (CMU)
FCAL
Adesh reported that not much progressed had been made. The major current puzzle is that when looking at showers due to electrons, although the overall cluster energy has a resolution ~10%, the individual block energies have resolutions of ~30%. They have made progress in determining the efficiencies of showers due to electrons, but are held up with this problem. Will M. has agreed to look at the pi0 minimization procedure, based on his experience with using it for the BCAL.
BCAL
Elton reported that the efficiencies depend on many variables, including how different types of hits are treated and which layer is being looked at. These issues are a major current focus. Another recent major effort was developing better running conditions. These include variable fan speeds on the crates (h/t Mark Dalton), running at a lower temperature (10 degrees down from 18 degrees), and a higher over-voltage (1.4V versus 1.0V). Will M. is looking for eta -> gamma gamma decays, since none have been seen yet so far in the fall data. He is looking at the data and simulations to determine the prospects for measuring this. It was also suggested that the characterize the pi0 reconstruction performance over a wider energy range.
CDC
- Simulations
- 5.5 GeV simulations
- mcsmear updates
- Spring Calibration Plans
- Normalization
