Difference between revisions of "Sep 15, 2008 Calorimetry"

From GlueXWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Post Discussion)
(Tentative Agenda)
Line 35: Line 35:
 
#** Comparison between SiPM and FM options
 
#** Comparison between SiPM and FM options
 
#** How many (which) changes in geometry should be studied?
 
#** How many (which) changes in geometry should be studied?
# Final agenda for collaboration meeting
+
# Final agenda for the [[GlueX-Collaboration-Sept-2008]]
  
 
= Post Discussion on SiPMs =
 
= Post Discussion on SiPMs =

Revision as of 08:51, 15 September 2008

Usual Time: 10:30 ET.

  • Phone:
    • +1-800-377-8846 : US
    • +1-888-276-7715 : Canada
    • +1-302-709-8424 : International
    • then enter participant code: 39527048# (remember the "#")


Items for followup from Sep 2 calibration meeting

  1. Each subsystem must complete blanks in specification table.

Items for followup from Aug 18 meeting

  1. George: report on trip to Edmonton
  2. Estimates of pedestal width (electronic noise, etc.) for FM PMTs. The dark rate should be negligigle in this case.
  3. Resolution studies with up-to-date geometry (Blake) ONGOING
  4. Resolution studies with different segmentation for the outer section. - LOWER PRIORITY
  5. Add F100 rad hard glass to simulation. - Matt will do this
  6. Decision on Bcal sampling fraction needed by Sep. - Work by Stamatis (on vacation) will be summarized upon his return.

Documents to Review

  1. Media:PDEgraph.pdf
  2. Media:frac.pdf

Tentative Agenda

  1. Announcements
  2. Results on study of increased sampling in BCAL
  3. Status of simulation tasks and discussion of priorities
    • Improved simulation of resolutions
      • Include realistic threshold for FM option
      • Studies of timing resolution
    • Study impact of inactive material at the end of Bcal on acceptance
      • Inactive material includes light guides, light detector, cables, dark box or cover, etc.
      • Comparison between SiPM and FM options
      • How many (which) changes in geometry should be studied?
  4. Final agenda for the GlueX-Collaboration-Sept-2008

Post Discussion on SiPMs

  1. SiPM: A35H vs A20H devices
  2. Delivered types
    • 1x1 A20H contract units were Getter 2
    • 3x3 A20H contract units were Getter 1
    • 1x1 A35H contract units were Getter 2
    • 3x3 A35H contract units were Getter 2
    • 3x3 A35H engineering (JLab only) units were Getter 1
  3. Options for arrays:
    • 3x3 A20H Getter 1 or Getter 2
    • 3x3 A35H Getter 1 only

Minutes

Attending: