Upload
akando
View
34
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Update: Run1 vs Run2 CC inc & First look at Water-out/Water-in. Erez Reinherz-Aronis and Rajarshi Das (w/ Walter Toki) May 9, 2011. Outlook. Samples and POTs Bunch structure Run1 vs Run2 Run 1: Data vs MCp4 Run 2: Data vs MCp4 MCp4: Run1 vs Run2 Data: Run1vs Run2 Water-out/Water-in - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Update:Run1 vs Run2 CC inc &
First look at Water-out/Water-in
Erez Reinherz-Aronis and Rajarshi Das
(w/ Walter Toki)
May 9, 2011
1
Outlook
• Samples and POTs
• Bunch structure
• Run1 vs Run2Run 1: Data vs MCp4Run 2: Data vs MCp4MCp4: Run1 vs Run2Data: Run1vs Run2
• Water-out/Water-inData: Ratio Water-out/Water-in vs expectation
2
(from files header)
Total DQ MCp4
Run1 water 3.09x1019 2.99x1019 5.56x1020
Run2 water 6.98x1019 4.36x1019 6.13x1020
Sum 1.00x1020 7.35x1019 11.7x1020
Samples and POTs
3
• DQ sample were used• CC Inclusive Selection:
Highest momentum negative charge track in a bunchBegins in the P0D (no TPC pulls cut)
Bunch timing
4
Run1:Run 31 → 34
Run 36
Run2:Run 37→38
• Run2 has Double-Triple bunch structure
• 1st = Run36; 2nd, 3rd = Run37/8
Run 2
Run 1
Run1 vs Run2
Run 1: Data vs MCp4Run 2: Data vs MCp4MCp4: Run1 vs Run2Data: Run1vs Run2
5
Run1 Data vs MCp4CC inc - X, Y, Cosθ, φ
6Normalized by POT
Run1 Data vs MCp4Z, Neg Trk Momentum
7
• Normalized by POT• Start position of Highest momentum Neg. Trk in the P0D• The dashed lines represent the water-target limits
Run2 Data vs MCp4CC inc - X, Y, Cosθ, φ
8Normalized by POT
Run2 Data vs MCp4Z, Neg Trk Momentum
9
• Normalized by POT• Data/MCp4 = 8273/8521 = 0.97±0.02
MCp4 Run1 vs Run2CC inc - X, Y, Cosθ, φ
10
Run1 waterRun2 water
Normalized by POT
Mcp4 Run1 vs Run2Z, Neg Trk Momentum
11
• Normalized by POT• Run1/Run2 = 111955/108661 = 1.030±0.004
usEcal usWT cWT cEcal
Run1/Run2 0.998 1.013 1.027 1.064
Stat. Error 0.015 0.008 0.006 0.009
Data Run1 vs Run2CC inc - X, Y, Cosθ, φ
12
Run1 waterRun2 water
Normalized by POT
Data Run1 vs Run2Z, Neg Trk Momentum
13
• Normalized by POT• Run1/Run2 = 6062/5673 = 1.07±0.02
usEcal usWT cWT cEcal
Run1/Run2 0.99 1.08 1.08 1.05
Stat. Error 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.04
Z distribution checks: XY
14X
Beam position and direction
Run1 waterRun2 water
Normalized by POT
Water-out/Water-in
Data ratio vs expectation
15
(from files header)
Total DQ
Run1 water 3.09x1019 2.99x1019
Run2 water 6.98x1019 4.36x1019
Sum 1.00x1020 7.35x1019
Run2 air 1.79x1019 1.77x1019
Samples and POTs
16
• DQ sample were used
Data CC inc: X, Y, Cosθ, φ
17
Run1Run2 waterRun2 air
Normalized by POT
Data CC inc: Neg Trk Momentum
18
• Run1• Run2 water• Run2 air
• Normalized by POT
• Note: Run2 air is reconstructed as water
• No TPC pull used
Z position distributions
19
• Start position of Highest momentum Neg. Trk in the P0D• The dashed lines represent the water-target limits
Run1 3588Run2 water 3358Run2 air 2573
Run1/Run2 = 1.07±0.02
Water-out/Water-in ratio
20
• Water-target measured ration 0.70±0.02 • Expected ration from material list: 0.68• Dashed lines are the water-target limits
0.94±0.09 0.70±0.02 0.94±0.05
Summary• Run1 vs Run 2:
MCp4 Run1/Run2 ~3% higherData Run1/Run2 ~7% higherMaybe there is some Z difference (within limit stat.)
• Water-out/Water-in ratio measured 70 ± 2 % (expect 68 %)
• Future plans:Data/MC ratio vs P0DulesMCp4 – study TPC pulls
21
Update:Run1 vs Run2 CC inc &
First look at Water-out/Water-in
Erez Reinherz-Aronis and Rajarshi Das
(w/ Walter Toki)
May 9, 2011
22
Backup• (General) ND280 Fiducial
-1060 < X < 1008 [mm]
-1085 < Y < 1110 [mm]
-3190 < Z < 5000 [mm]
• P0D Fiducial-1038 < X < 995 [mm]
-1060 < Y < 1100 [mm]
-3190 < Z < -980 [mm]
23