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
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 • 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
Average Hit Widths
Average Hit Widths, Data/MC Ratio 1.49 1.31
Average Hit Widths, 2.08 kV/cm Run 838
Average Hit Widths, 1.7 kV/cm Run 840
Average Hit Widths, 1.52 kV/cm Run 1157
Average Hit Widths, 1.04 kV/cm Run 1192
Representative Waveforms, 1.7 kV/cm Run 840
Representative Waveforms, 2.08 kV/cm Run 838
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
Explore More Topics
Stay informed with curated content and fresh updates.