RE: tpc geometries

From: Ian Bearden (bearden@nbi.dk)
Date: Fri Oct 19 2001 - 02:42:24 EDT

  • Next message: Christian Holm Christensen: "Yet another fire!? (Was Re: Old stuff in /afs/rhic/opt/brahms)"

    Hi Flemming, others TPCers,
    Thanks for the info.  I suggest we use these numbers for a first reduction,
    and then if they change appreciably, we redo the reduction.  Since one of
    the primary uses of this reduction is to get data for TOF calibrations, we
    will not be too adversly impacted by small changes in geo, vdrift, etc.
    That is, we may wish to re reduce for analysis, but we may not have to
    recalibrate.  Any comments?
    
    As for the vdrift...
    I think that the relative drift velocity seems (and note, I said 'seems', I
    didn't say 'has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt') to fairly stable.
    Now that we have the fibers, we can check this quite easily and will do so.
    Still, does anyone have a good feeling for how much the vdrift must change
    to impact any measured physics variables?  I think that by requiring  FFS
    tracks with a valid tof, one effectively makes a fiducial cut in the D2
    magnet, which is what the y position would be used for.
    I would, of course, appreciate any criticizism to the forgoing.
    Finally, to what extent can we use the DVM to monitor changes in the drift
    velocity?
    
    Ian
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-brahms-dev-l@bnl.gov [mailto:owner-brahms-dev-l@bnl.gov]On
    Behalf Of Flemming Videbaek
      Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 9:58 PM
      To: brahms-tpc-l@bnl.gov
      Cc: brahms-dev-l@bnl.gov
      Subject: tpc geometries
    
    
      The currently recommended values for tpc tracking (in particular for TPM1
    and TPM2) have been deduced
      looking at several zero-file runs, and field runs at different angles, and
    revisiting the survey and complementing measurements.
      Additionaly they have been compared to the rudimentary survey done before
    the run, as well as performing measuremnts
      on TPC timing etc, looking at positions of clusters within TPCs etc. Some
    of the information is also pertinent to the
      forward TPCs.
    
    
    
      a) The TPM1,TPM2 values are  for 90 degrees
      b) The small tpm2 rotation is consistent with the survey value (of -.4
    deg)
      c) The heights are derived from the survey top's and internal geometries.
          (design drawings + later checks). All TPCs
      d) The timing offsets for the SCA readout start are from a measurement of
    T1. It is estimated the other TPCs at most
          can deviate by 50 nsec.
      e) Drift velocities have been found for tpm1 as the 'best value' the
    consistently
          -- get the track projection near Ty~0
          -- the bottom cluster y (in local coordinates between -10 to -9 cm)
    [physical constraint]
          -- reasonable matching with TPM2
         -- matching with Tpm2 tracks.
       f ) TPM2 average velocities from projection and matching with fibres and
    tof calibration slats.
       g) It is apparent the changes in Vdrift has  occured over the running
    period even within hours, and calibrations
           will have to be done. Also for at least Tpm2 there are x,y dependent
    effects in the tracking that eventually has to be
           taken care of. This should also be investigated to wehat degree this
    is present in T1,T2 now with the fibres avaliable.
       h) The quoted values for Vdrift for T1 and T2 are speculations The 1.6
    from the presently used values. The larger value
           comes if one assumes that the lowest y-values comes from near the
    bottom cathode plane (at -10 cm). The other
           T1, T2 values should be used.
    
       i) There are several effects NOT understood for the MRS tracking as the
    mentioned x,y variations (as observed by track
      projection with fibres), the change of matching angle vs track angle.So
    the present geometry though reasonable and
      consistent is not the final word on this story.
    
    
      Eun-Joo, JHLee and FV
    
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -------
    
      TPM1
      geo   x (90)      0
    
            y(90)      1.8      +-0.1
    
            z(90)      94.6
    
            angle      90
    
      params      fTimeOffset 1030      +-50
    
            fTimeBase   12      +-.2
    
            fDrift      1.7      +-0.05      Time dependent?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
      TPM2
    
      geo   x (90)      0
    
            y(90)      2.05      +-0.1
    
            z(90)      286.6
    
            angle      89.75      +-0.05
    
      params      fTimeOffset 1030      +-50
    
            fTimeBase   11.8      +-.1
    
            fDrift      1.6      +-0.05      Time dependent?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
      T1
    
      geo   x (90)
    
            y(90)      0.8      +-0.1
    
            z(90)
    
            angle      1.95
    
      params      fTimeOffset 1030      +-20
    
            fTimeBase   11.8      +-.1
    
            fDrift      1.6-1.9   +-0.05      Time dependent?
    
    
    
    
    
      T2
    
      geo   x (90)
    
            y(90)      0.8      +-0.1
    
            z(90)
    
            angle
    
      params      fTimeOffset 1030      +-50
    
            fTimeBase   11.8      +-.1
    
            fDrift      1.6-1.9   +-0.05      Time dependent?
    
    
      ------------------------------------------------------
      Flemming Videbaek
      Physics Department
      Brookhaven National Laboratory
    
      tlf: 631-344-4106
      fax 631-344-1334
      e-mail: videbaek@bnl.gov
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 19 2001 - 14:09:24 EDT