May 29, 2007 Calorimetry

Agenda

May 29, 2007, Calorimetry meeting, 1:00 PM EDT

• Report from Alex on Beam Test Analysis
  • BCAL_res_cal.pdf
  • BCAL_res_cal2.pdf
• Status report on incorporating sampling fraction error into MC
• Regina Standalone Monte Carlo (ReSAM) and Time Resolution update by Blake

Low Energy ReSAM

'Low Energy MC SF Resolution'

'Low Energy MC SF Resolution vs Theta'

Time Difference Resolution

'7 only'

'8 only'

'9 only'

'7 and 8'

'7,8,9 and 10'

Time Average Resolution

'w/ tagger reference'

'w/ t7 reference'

• AOB

Minutes

Present: Simon, David, Eugene, Elke, Elton, Richard, Alex, Zisis, Blake, George

• Alex began by presenting results from his analysis of shower depth in the BCAL.
  • He showed fractional energy deposited in a layer as a function of incident beam energy as described in BCAL_res_cal.pdf above. He then took the integrated parametrization for longitudinal energy deposition in the PDG and adjusted the BCAL calibration to match. It should be noted that the PDG parametrization is derived from data > 1 GeV. The gross features match, but there are clear discrepancies for incident photons below 300 MeV.
  • He then compared similar data for the beam incident at a 40 degree angle with what one might expect from lengthening the layer thickness by 1 / sin 40. Agreement here is not so good, but it was noted that the transverse development of the shower now becomes relevant.
  • 'Action Item:' Have Blake produce MC predicted energy depositions as a function of layer. These will likely be much better than the PDG expression and can then be used to calibrate the data in the same fashion.
  • 'Action Item:' Analyze lower level data to look for possible electronics issues, non-linearity, pedestal problems, etc., that may lead to problems at low energy.

• Blake presented plots of both the sampling fraction and sampling fraction error as a a function of energy for photons normal to the BCAL (shown above).