hit width vs extraction field
play

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

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


  1. Hit Width vs. Extraction Field Aidan Medcalf University of Dallas Oct 13, 2018

  2. 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 • Cuts: 1.7 840 MuonsCN 2.08 838 Extr208 • 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

  3. Average Hit Widths

  4. Average Hit Widths, Data/MC Ratio 1.49 1.31

  5. Average Hit Widths, 2.08 kV/cm Run 838

  6. Average Hit Widths, 1.7 kV/cm Run 840

  7. Average Hit Widths, 1.52 kV/cm Run 1157

  8. Average Hit Widths, 1.04 kV/cm Run 1192

  9. Representative Waveforms, 1.7 kV/cm Run 840

  10. Representative Waveforms, 2.08 kV/cm Run 838

  11. Results 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 • MC seems to match data well for high extraction fields, to within a multiplicative constant • MC is wrong for low extraction fields

Recommend


More recommend