Hit Width vs. Extraction Field Aidan Medcalf University of Dallas - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
hit width vs extraction field
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Hit Width vs. Extraction Field Aidan Medcalf University of Dallas - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 24, 2022 49 likes •159 views

Hit Width vs. Extraction Field Aidan Medcalf University of Dallas Oct 13, 2018 Data and MC Extraction Field Data Run MCB Four extraction fields (see right) 1.04 1192 Extr104 Used 2018_August_24, MCB1 MuonsCN 1.52 1175 Extr152

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Hit Width vs. Extraction Field

Aidan Medcalf University of Dallas Oct 13, 2018

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Data and MC

  • Four extraction fields (see right)
  • Used 2018_August_24, MCB1 MuonsCN
  • Cuts:
  • Highway, CBR of 0.15 (no highway on MC)
  • 90 cm crossed in drift direction
  • Corner LEMs ignored
  • Individual average waveforms were

found for representative tracks with desirable angles

1

Extraction Field Data Run MCB 1.04 1192 Extr104 1.52 1175 Extr152 1.7 840 MuonsCN 2.08 838 Extr208

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Average Hit Widths

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Average Hit Widths, Data/MC Ratio

1.49 1.31

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Average Hit Widths, 2.08 kV/cm

Run 838

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Average Hit Widths, 1.7 kV/cm

Run 840

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Average Hit Widths, 1.52 kV/cm

Run 1157

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Average Hit Widths, 1.04 kV/cm

Run 1192

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Representative Waveforms, 1.7 kV/cm

Run 840

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Representative Waveforms, 2.08 kV/cm

Run 838

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Results

  • MC seems to match data well for high extraction fields, to within a

multiplicative constant

  • MC is wrong for low extraction fields

Extraction Field Data Mean MC Mean Data/MC Ratio View 0 View 1 View 0 View 1 View 0 View 1 1.04 37.1 36.6 12.3 6.26 3.01 5.84 1.52 18.6 17.2 11.2 5.84 1.66 2.96 1.7 16.9 7.29 10.8 5.63 1.64 1.36 2.08 16.1 7.38 10.3 5.36 1.49 1.31