Proton Calorimetry/Meetings/2020/02/17: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
=== [[ELogs/SaadShaikh|Saad Shaikh]] === | === [[ELogs/SaadShaikh|Saad Shaikh]] === | ||
* he is able to fit real data using Laurent's code | * he is able to fit real data using Laurent's code | ||
** all of the steps are included, quenched bragg fit and reconstructed curve. comparison with simulated | ** all of the steps are included, quenched bragg fit and reconstructed curve. comparison with simulated distribution is also included. | ||
* the range is always slightly underestimated | * the range is always slightly underestimated | ||
** fitting simulated data, a small underestimation comes from the model | ** fitting simulated data, a small underestimation comes from the model | ||
** fitting real data, the underestimation is consistent with uncertainties | ** fitting real data, the underestimation is consistent with uncertainties | ||
* he tried data for measuring range | * he tried data for measuring range without PMMA absorbers and data with absorbers to double check the WE thickness of the absorber | ||
* the analysis includes Bkg subtraction and calibration | * the analysis includes Bkg subtraction and calibration | ||
* comparison of run 47 30mm vs 52 21 mm and dependence with beam size | * comparison of run 47 30mm vs 52 21 mm and dependence with beam size |
Revision as of 15:37, 17 February 2020
Minutes for UCL Proton Calorimetry Meetings, 17th February (D17, Physics & Astronomy, UCL)
Present
Simon Jolly, Laurent Kelleter, Saad Shaikh, Raffaella radogna
Saad Shaikh
- he is able to fit real data using Laurent's code
- all of the steps are included, quenched bragg fit and reconstructed curve. comparison with simulated distribution is also included.
- the range is always slightly underestimated
- fitting simulated data, a small underestimation comes from the model
- fitting real data, the underestimation is consistent with uncertainties
- he tried data for measuring range without PMMA absorbers and data with absorbers to double check the WE thickness of the absorber
- the analysis includes Bkg subtraction and calibration
- comparison of run 47 30mm vs 52 21 mm and dependence with beam size
- the smaller beam has higher light output, but the difference in light output compensates at the Bragg peak.
- will plot spot size intermediate steps to check the consistency of the measurements.
- started implementing more object oriented way of implementing data.
- he is interested in running geant4 simulations in the near future
Raffaella Radogna
- has been busy with grant application
- performed hardware test to optimise the design of the electronic board with Bernard.
- the best option is having 2.86 mm pitch for best coupling PDs array and scintillator sheets
- will double check with knowledge exchange the information provided by Laura about the market research grant
- will update CosyLab and provide a draft
Laurent Kelleter
- cross talk measurements performed last week
- LED with optical fibers to inject light
- he will perform the analysis to quantify it.
- final version of the quenched bragg paper for submission
- will start sending his thesis to Simon for corrections