Open airqui opened 2 years ago
I've made quite a few improvements for TB2022-23 that I'll commit to my fork soon (then do the PR). I can produce (generation-digitization) of the shuffled configuration in ~ a day, but would like to confirm that the Tungsten was kept at 2.8 mm for the first seven layers and 4.2 mm for the last eight. For the silicon thickness I'll follow https://llrelog.in2p3.fr/calice/2325.
I can see in the elog that the beam energies used were: 1.0, 2.0, 2.6, 3.0, 4.0, 4.6, 5.0, 5.6, 5.8, and 6.0 GeV. Does that sound fine?
The tungsten repartitions are as you say. Thicker layers only in the back.
For the sensors, yes, the 2325 distribution is the correct. Please remember than one slab (17? please double check it) has one wafer of 500um.
Take into account that we also have two sets of gains:
The S/N on the trigger and the S/N on the charge are different (and to be estimated). How?
I can see in the elog that the beam energies used were: 1.0, 2.0, 2.6, 3.0, 4.0, 4.6, 5.0, 5.6, 5.8, and 6.0 GeV. Does that sound fine?
if the e-log says so... There are also lots of mip calibration runs (and with angle). Same comment as always: first study the data-simulation comparison with mips.
I did check https://github.com/fabriciojm/SiWECAL-Sim/blob/main/generation/geometry_TB2022/ECAL_CONF1.xml are the FEV13s included in the simulation? (650um wafer thickness)
@fabriciojm Is there any update on the TB2022 geometry implementation ? Did you generate geometry for the different layers sorting (check e-log, we modified the sorting during the second week,)