Simulation Meeting February 27 2020 10AM ET

From Moller Wiki
Revision as of 16:07, 27 February 2020 by Rakithab (Talk | contribs) (Minutes)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Back to Main Page >> Simulation Meetings

previous meeting << >> following meeting

Simulation Task List Updated 2019


  • Immediate simulation tasks to complete - Ciprian, Sakib, Chandan
    • Ciprian: Deconvolution [1]
    • Sakib: Deconvolution and Ring Definition Optimization [2]


Attendance: Sakib, Ciprian, KK, Dustin, Dimitrii, Michael, Chandan, Wouter, Donald Jones


  • Ciprian, Deconvolution Summary:
    • Tile differences between hybrid and segmented field maps will be visited later once we complete the deconvolution study for two field map design
    • Fixing ep elastic or Al elastic significantly improves the background estimations. See Ciprian's 6-process summary slide. We can fix the aluminum background, for example, using Qweak experiment measurement.
    • Qweak made a 9% measurement of ep Aluminum asymmetry that will help to constraint Aluminum background in deconvolution study.
    • The secondary background mainly coming from air-scattering. Once we have more statistics, we can estimate more accurately and find if there is a way to shield them.
    • Why ep inelastic background asymmetry increases when sec. are included?
  • Mag field comment: SegmentedV1 field map is more aligned with hybrid field map. The segmented is easier to make tweaks to the field map compared to the hybrid.
  • Sakib, detector ring optimization:
    • Looked at four different ring radial sizes and compared the uncertainties for moller and backgrounds. No staggering used the same sizes for open, close and transition sectors.
    • Next step: optimizes at open, close and transition sectors with different radial sizes
    • Our present analysis show us there is not much difference between SegmentedV1 and hybrid field maps. We can conclude that there are no major differences between the two designs.
  • Raster in physics generators:
    • Raster in beam generator we have 0.149 mrad at target center now but according to Jay B. this will be 0.150 mrad. So values agree for the beam generator. We need to implement this on the physics generator.
  • Background simulation accumulated more statistics but no new analysis updates this week.

Return to Simulation Meetings
Return to Main Page