Proton Calorimetry/Meetings/2018/03/14: Difference between revisions

From PBTWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "== Minutes for UCL Proton Calorimetry Meeting, 14th March 2018 (D17, Physics & Astronomy, UCL) == === Present === '''Simon Jolly''', '''Ruben Saakyan''', '''Anastasia Basharina...")
 
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
=== Present ===
=== Present ===


'''Simon Jolly''', '''Ruben Saakyan''', '''Anastasia Basharina-Freshville''', '''Matthieu Hentz''', '''Jordan Silverman''', '''Dan Walker''', '''Laurent Kelleter'''
'''Anastasia Basharina-Freshville''', '''Dan Walker''', '''Jordan Silverman''', '''Laurent Kelleter''', '''Matthieu Hentz''', '''Simon Jolly''', '''Ruben Saakyan'''


'''DW''':
'''RS''':
* Had discussions with '''Tony Price''' (+Mariana) at Birmingham:
* Interested in seeing dose deposition vs depth, even if not calibrated, dump into histogram and check what we see from both sensors.
** Marian has extracted timestamps for tracker data.
* Seeing huge variations in current. Is this problem for us?
** Should be able to match up events from scope with tracker events.
** If variation of current affects relative variation in sheets then it's a problem.
** Now having to deal bugs in tracker reconstruction code...
** '''SJ''' suggest you can see variation in current but can wash it out if picking a 5 ms exposure on dlsr.
* '''Tony Price''' confirms an energy of 28 +/- 0.15 MeV.
* Consider 300 um scintillator sheets for very fine resolution around Bragg peak.
* '''RS''' suggests broad energy spread may be a result of upstream tracker degrading the beam.
** '''SJ''' and '''LK''' in perfect unison: this is fine for single energy but problematic when scanning different energies.
* ''To Do'':
* Good opportunity to check 5-stage tube if time allows.
** Fix bugs in tracker reconstruction code.
 
** Correlate with scintillator pulses.
'''MH''':
** Create 3D dose distribution.
* Finished writing documentation for simulation.
* Working on next coursework and CDT group project.
* Jacinta Jap would like to know:
**Where are the beam parameters used in the Clatterbridge simulation from?
*** '''SJ''' obtained Excel spreadsheet of Twiss parameters from Hywel Owen. As the scattering perturbs the beam a lot the shape should not be crucial. Making sure the energy is right is more important.
** Who wrote the MCNPX simulation?
*** '''SJ''' only recalls Colin Baker using MCNPX.


'''JS''':
'''JS''':
* CAD models of Clatterbridge beamline now complete based on '''MH''''s models:
* Sucessfully converted CAD model to a GDML file.
** Some material definitions not clear: Kapton needs clarifying.
* Asks if he should import it into the simulation before the report is due (deadline is 26 March)?
* '''MH''' suggests including the collimator and cap inside the nozzle.
** '''SJ''' suggests to work on it until Monday 19 March and focus on writing report from then onwards.
* ''To Do'':
** '''JS''' knows what steps are required, only needs to implement them.
** Add collimator and cap.
** '''MH''' suggests getting rid of beamline definition in DetectorConstruction, import GDML file and reintroduce any missing elements one by one for easier debugging.
** Rerun simulations to check differences in simulations with CAD components.


'''MH''':
'''DW''':
* Finished coursework: 7 weeks till next one.
* Will be around next year as he received offer from CDT in Quantum Technologies (woo woo).
* Writing documentation for simulation: tidying up macros for publication.
* Comments on Medaustron run:
 
** Timestamps are separated by 3 minutes 38 seconds, i.e. our data taken after theirs. There are no sensible matches between datasets.
'''LK''':
** '''SJ''' explains that absence of discrete trigger means no concrete correlation between the two data sets. Adjusting trigger levels throws away events so may end up with different numbers between calorimeter and tracker.
* ISDI sensor now working with DAQ PC:
** '''SJ''' suggest that it won't matter in write up for project. DW can show spectra and should also focus on writing after Monday evening (19 March).
** XCAP-Lite software runs under Windows 10.
** Can see ambient light but not light from LEDs.

Latest revision as of 16:33, 28 March 2018

Minutes for UCL Proton Calorimetry Meeting, 14th March 2018 (D17, Physics & Astronomy, UCL)

Present

Anastasia Basharina-Freshville, Dan Walker, Jordan Silverman, Laurent Kelleter, Matthieu Hentz, Simon Jolly, Ruben Saakyan

RS:

  • Interested in seeing dose deposition vs depth, even if not calibrated, dump into histogram and check what we see from both sensors.
  • Seeing huge variations in current. Is this problem for us?
    • If variation of current affects relative variation in sheets then it's a problem.
    • SJ suggest you can see variation in current but can wash it out if picking a 5 ms exposure on dlsr.
  • Consider 300 um scintillator sheets for very fine resolution around Bragg peak.
    • SJ and LK in perfect unison: this is fine for single energy but problematic when scanning different energies.
  • Good opportunity to check 5-stage tube if time allows.

MH:

  • Finished writing documentation for simulation.
  • Working on next coursework and CDT group project.
  • Jacinta Jap would like to know:
    • Where are the beam parameters used in the Clatterbridge simulation from?
      • SJ obtained Excel spreadsheet of Twiss parameters from Hywel Owen. As the scattering perturbs the beam a lot the shape should not be crucial. Making sure the energy is right is more important.
    • Who wrote the MCNPX simulation?
      • SJ only recalls Colin Baker using MCNPX.

JS:

  • Sucessfully converted CAD model to a GDML file.
  • Asks if he should import it into the simulation before the report is due (deadline is 26 March)?
    • SJ suggests to work on it until Monday 19 March and focus on writing report from then onwards.
    • JS knows what steps are required, only needs to implement them.
    • MH suggests getting rid of beamline definition in DetectorConstruction, import GDML file and reintroduce any missing elements one by one for easier debugging.

DW:

  • Will be around next year as he received offer from CDT in Quantum Technologies (woo woo).
  • Comments on Medaustron run:
    • Timestamps are separated by 3 minutes 38 seconds, i.e. our data taken after theirs. There are no sensible matches between datasets.
    • SJ explains that absence of discrete trigger means no concrete correlation between the two data sets. Adjusting trigger levels throws away events so may end up with different numbers between calorimeter and tracker.
    • SJ suggest that it won't matter in write up for project. DW can show spectra and should also focus on writing after Monday evening (19 March).
Retrieved from "https://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/pbt/pbtWiki/index.php?title=Proton_Calorimetry/Meetings/2018/03/14&oldid=1601"