Difference between revisions of "Minutes SHMS MC 7"
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
3. Next we looked at studies of the x-y distributions in the detector HUT and it seems that now that the Dipole offset is 26 cm instead of 20 cm, the center of the drift-chambers do not have to be offset by 5 cm with respect to the central ray. In fact making it symmetric about the central ray increases the delta acceptance at the lower deltas with almost no effect at the higher delta and increases the average acceptance by ~5%. Even larger gains are mitigated by the dimensions of the Calorimeter. Both COSY and SNAKE model suggest that it would be better to make the DCs symmetric about the central axis. Mark and Howard will inform the the designers about this change. | 3. Next we looked at studies of the x-y distributions in the detector HUT and it seems that now that the Dipole offset is 26 cm instead of 20 cm, the center of the drift-chambers do not have to be offset by 5 cm with respect to the central ray. In fact making it symmetric about the central ray increases the delta acceptance at the lower deltas with almost no effect at the higher delta and increases the average acceptance by ~5%. Even larger gains are mitigated by the dimensions of the Calorimeter. Both COSY and SNAKE model suggest that it would be better to make the DCs symmetric about the central axis. Mark and Howard will inform the the designers about this change. | ||
| − | (see | + | (see https://hallcweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/7/7f/Comp_det_xy.gif and |
Revision as of 10:42, 17 November 2011
Minutes of SHMS MC working group meeting 11/15/2011
Participants: Dave, Dipangkar, Mark and Peter
1. Mark showed plots that demonstrated why the delta acceptance of the SNAKE and COSY models were looking different as observed during the previous meeting. The reason was the difference were the cuts in the detector HUT which were not being applied in the SNAKE model. Once those cuts are in place, the COSY and SNAKE distributions agree very well. The x at the focal plane agree remarkably well, although at different intermediate apertures in the dipole they can look somewhat different. The y distribution at the FP agree but have an offset of few cm. (see https://hallcweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/4/4c/Comp_snake_cosy.gif)
2. Dipangkar showed the plots of focal plane x vs y distributions where the current apertures were compared with the apertures from pre-2006 model. In the pre 2006 model there were no HB apertures, no mechanical entrance and exit for the Quads and dipole apertures were also different. It seems the largest effect is from the Quad mechanical apertures. Without the quad mechanical apertures, the focal place distributions resemble the 2007-2009 distributions we have been trying to reproduce. However, the acceptance is still only about 4.6 msr still smaller than the 5 msr reported during 2007-2009. (See for eample https://hallcweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/f/fa/Aperture3.png)
3. Next we looked at studies of the x-y distributions in the detector HUT and it seems that now that the Dipole offset is 26 cm instead of 20 cm, the center of the drift-chambers do not have to be offset by 5 cm with respect to the central ray. In fact making it symmetric about the central ray increases the delta acceptance at the lower deltas with almost no effect at the higher delta and increases the average acceptance by ~5%. Even larger gains are mitigated by the dimensions of the Calorimeter. Both COSY and SNAKE model suggest that it would be better to make the DCs symmetric about the central axis. Mark and Howard will inform the the designers about this change. (see https://hallcweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/7/7f/Comp_det_xy.gif and
