Beam properties for run

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Test beam 2001 Results M.C. Fouz Muon Week, CERN Nov 01.
Advertisements

1 Calice Analysis 02/03/09 David Ward ECAL alignment update David Ward  A few thoughts about ECAL alignment  And related issue of the drift velocity.
1 Calice UK Analysis Meeting 23/1/07David Ward Cambridge data analysis work David Ward Main focus – data-MC comparisons Using “official” reconstructed.
6-1 Introduction To Empirical Models 6-1 Introduction To Empirical Models.
Test Beam 2003 Some Preliminary Results CMS Week Sep-2003.
Drift Chambers at DESY and CERN Mike Green, Fabrizio Salvatore, Michele Faucci Giannelli.
Using  0 mass constraint to improve particle flow ? Graham W. Wilson, Univ. of Kansas, July 27 th 2005 Study prompted by looking at event displays like.
Status of Tracking at DESY Paul Dauncey, Michele Faucci Giannelli, Mike Green, Hakan Yilmaz, Anne Marie Magnan, George Mavromanolakis, Fabrizio Salvatore.
Drift velocity and tracking Michele Faucci Giannelli, Mike Green, Fabrizio Salvatore.
Track Fitting and Comparator Results Emu UC Davis Feb. 26, 2005 Yangheng Zheng University of California, Los Angeles  Motivation & Introduction.
March 6th, 2006CALICE meeting, UCL1 Position and angular resolution studies with ECAL TB prototype Introduction Linear fit method Results with 1, 2, 3,
© Imperial College LondonPage 1 Preliminary Studies of the Tracking Resolution at DESY Hakan Yilmaz.
Page 1 Calculating the Beam Position at the Ecal for DESY Run (Independent of Tracking) Hakan Yilmaz.
Tracking System at CERN 06 and 07 test beams Michele Faucci Giannelli.
29 Mar 2007Tracking - Paul Dauncey1 Tracking/Alignment Status Paul Dauncey, Michele Faucci Giannelli, Mike Green, Anne-Marie Magnan, George Mavromanolakis,
Optical Alignment System (OASys) Masters Thesis of Yuki Ikeda Rikkyo University Presented by Itaru Nakagawa RIKEN/RBRC 1.
The LiC Detector Toy M. Valentan, M. Regler, R. Frühwirth Austrian Academy of Sciences Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna InputSimulation ReconstructionOutput.
Pion test beam from KEK: momentum studies Data provided by Toho group: 2512 beam tracks D. Duchesneau April 27 th 2011 Track  x Track  y Base track positions.
A.meneguzzo, 03 april 2002 LNL- MB3 chamber test with cosmic triggers Some results on the tests performed on the MB3 chambers produced in Legnaro are presented.
Muon alignment with Cosmics: Real and Monte Carlo data S.Vecchi, S.Pozzi INFN Ferrara 37th Software Week CERN June 2009.
U.GaspariniCMS week, 11/06/021 MB3 internal alignment study using cosmic muons - 14 MB3 chambers assembled in Legnaro have been extensively tested using.
PERFORMANCE OF THE MACRO LIMITED STREAMER TUBES IN DRIFT MODE FOR MEASUREMENTS OF MUON ENERGY - Use of the MACRO limited streamer tubes in drift mode -Use.
1 Tracking Reconstruction Norman A. Graf SLAC July 19, 2006.
15 Dec 2010 CERN Sept 2010 beam test: Sensor response study Chris Walmsley and Sam Leveridge (presented by Paul Dauncey) 1Paul Dauncey.
MdcPatRec Tracking Status Zhang Yao, Zhang Xueyao Shandong University.
Detector Alignment Thomas Naumann DESY Zeuthen n Detector alignment and calibration often imply least squares fits with many parameters : n n global parametersof.
11 Sep 2009Paul Dauncey1 TPAC test beam analysis tasks Paul Dauncey.
Updates on the P0D reconstruction
1 Energy loss correction for a crystal calorimeter He Miao Institute of High Energy Physics Beijing, P.R.China.
What is in my contribution area Nick Sinev, University of Oregon.
Mitglied der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Calibration of the COSY-TOF STT & pp Elastic Analysis Sedigheh Jowzaee IKP Group Talk 11 July 2013.
August 26, 2003P. Nilsson, SPD Group Meeting1 Paul Nilsson, SPD Group Meeting, August 26, 2003 Test Beam 2002 Analysis Techniques for Estimating Intrinsic.
Background Subtraction and Likelihood Method of Analysis: First Attempt Jose Benitez 6/26/2006.
21 Jun 2010Paul Dauncey1 First look at FNAL tracking chamber alignment Paul Dauncey, with lots of help from Daniel and Angela.
7 May 2009Paul Dauncey1 Tracker alignment issues Paul Dauncey.
CMS WEEK – MARCH06 REVIEW OF MB4 COMMISSIONING DATA Giorgia Mila
Positional and Angular Resolution of the CALICE Pre-Prototype ECAL Hakan Yilmaz.
© Imperial College LondonPage 1 Tracking & Ecal Positional/Angular Resolution Hakan Yilmaz.
A. Meneguzzo Padova University & INFN Validation and Performance of the CMS Barrel Muon Drift Chambers with Cosmic Rays A. Meneguzzo Padova University.
1 A first look at the KEK tracker data with G4MICE Malcolm Ellis 2 nd December 2005.
Progress on the beam tracking instrumentation Position measurement device Tests performed and their resolution Decision on electronics Summary.
Preliminary Slice Test Track Fitting S. Durkin Sept. 8, 2005 Analyze RunNum1007Evs0to49999.bin using /AnalysisUtilities look for tracks in two separate.
Barbara Storaci, Wouter Hulsbergen, Nicola Serra, Niels Tuning 1.
Current Status of MDC Track Reconstruction MdcPatRec Zhang Yao, Zhang Xueyao
STAR SVT Self Alignment V. Perevoztchikov Brookhaven National Laboratory,USA.
18 Sep 2008Paul Dauncey 1 DECAL: Motivation Hence, number of charged particles is an intrinsically better measure than the energy deposited Clearest with.
 Elastic e- e- scattering has very well-known kinematics with a highly correlated energy and angle between the electrons  MC follows these models extremely.
LAV efficiency studies with photons T. Spadaro* *Frascati National Laboratory of INFN.
Manqi Ruan Discussing & Support: Roman, Francois, Vincent, Supervisor: Z. ZHANG (LAL) & Y. GAO (Tsinghua)) DQ Check for CERN Test.
9 Sep 2008Paul Dauncey1 Tracking software status Paul Dauncey.
11 Sep 2007Tracking - Paul Dauncey1 Tracking Code Paul Dauncey, Imperial College London.
Comparison of algorithms for hit reconstruction in the DTs: Test of calibration procedures for t trig and drift velocity on Test Beam data Test of calibration.
Michele Faucci Giannelli
How regression works The Right Questions about Statistics:
Beam Gas Vertex – Beam monitor
Tracking results from Au+Au test Beam
Tracking System at CERN 06 and 07 test beams
Using MICE to verify simulation codes?
Analysis Test Beam Pixel TPC
Validating Magnets Using Beam
MDC Data Check Wu Linghui
IDEA Detector Simulation Status
Slice Test: Preliminary Data Analysis The Ohio State University
° status report analysis details: overview; “where we are”; plans: before finalizing result.. I.Larin 02/13/2009.
Monte Carlo simulation of the DIRC prototype
DESY drift chambers efficiency and track reconstruction
Energy Calibration with Compton Data
Forward-Backward Asymmetry Study in
Imperial laser system and analysis
° status report analysis details: overview; “where we are”; plans: before finalizing result.. I.Larin 02/13/2009.
Presentation transcript:

Beam properties for run 230101 Paul Dauncey 2 Mar 2007 Beam properties

Some basics Layers numbered 0 (closest to ECAL) to 3 (furthest) CERN data will have no hits in layer 3 Alignment constants defined as: x = vd × t – x0 and similar for y Hopefully x0 will not change even if vd does Values of x0 determined from run 230101 by defining the coordinate system as the beam in this run But actually measure TDC time peak x0 = tpeak/ vd so values depend on drift velocity I estimate for “good” hits the peak values in each layer: X tpeak = 1310, 1116, 1183, 1020 Y tpeak = 1209, 1165, 1113, 1055 2 Mar 2007 Beam properties

Extrapolation from beam origin Project forward from -9185mm in MC Compare with truth hits in the drift chamber No beam spread (as MC), no intrinsic resolution Allows measurement of scattering correlation matrix Add on intrinsic resolution per chamber = 0.6mm Uncorrelated addition of 0.36mm2 along the diagonal of matrix Gives matrix to use for linear track fit back to beam origin Fit data tracks in run 230101 using this matrix Fixed all drift velocities to 0.03mm/ns N.B. Exactly the same as method needed for “normal” track fit but using gun rather than fake layer… 2 Mar 2007 Beam properties

Check quality of track fit Probability from c2/DOF Large peak near zero; wrong combinations (?) “Good” tracks have flat distribution  Note, only about half the events have “good” track; using file from George with only one TDC hit/chamber/event (selected how?) 2 Mar 2007 Beam properties

Sensitivity to intrinsic resolution Tried 0.4mm, 0.8mm intrinsic resolutions; 0.6mm best of these 0.4mm 0.8mm 0.4mm 0.8mm 2 Mar 2007 Beam properties

Apparent beam spread Intercept at z=0 tan(angle) 2 Mar 2007 Beam properties

Apparent spread includes track errors Can only be estimated from track fit Flat probability gives some confidence they are reasonable Apparent error matrices in x and y Track error matrices Difference = beam shape sx = 0.8mm stx = 0.6mrad sy = 0.8mm, sty = 0.4mrad Not a huge position-angle correlation; could be ignored 10.29 -0.00143 6.73e-07 10.40 -0.00127 4.71e-07 9.70 -0.00157 2.93e-07 9.70 -0.00157 2.93e-07 0.59 0.00014 3.78e-07 0.70 0.00029 1.77e-07 2 Mar 2007 Beam properties

Redo with different drift velocities Drift velocity = 0.030mm/ns Drift velocity = 0.027mm/ns Drift velocity = 0.033mm/ns 0.027mm/ns gives unphysical result Track error is bigger than measured spread of beam position Beam size changes strongly, angle spread is less sensitive 0.59 0.00014 3.78e-07 0.70 0.00029 1.77e-07 -1.18 0.00038 2.57e-07 -1.11 0.00051 0.94e-07 2.53 -0.00011 5.10e-07 2.57 0.00008 2.68e-07 2 Mar 2007 Beam properties