 |
 |
Hello Matt,
You’re absolutely correct that we need to do this. Pelle’s implementation of the SVT is the best place to start.
I posted earlier to this mailing list asking about the ECal position, but as Nathan pointed out the survey data
have not yet been fully analyzed. The field map simulation we have from TOSCA still has issues with the
magnitude of the fringe field and with some overshooting for large y values. I pinged Stepan about both of
these points, but haven’t yet received a reply.
Your naming proposal sounds good to me.
Norman
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Graham, Mathew Thomas
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 11:56 AM
To: hps-software
Subject: detector for spring run
Hi All,
We should put together a detector with our best knowledge of the detector as it’s built. I think we are almost there with HPS-Proposal2014-v9-2pt2. Nathan mentioned that
the latest ECAL survey hasn’t been incorporated (or received) yet, so that can wait. We should probably add in the full 3d B-field…anything else? Definitely we need to change the naming convention (the HPS-Proposal2014-XXX
is from ~2013 when we were _developing_ the proposal)…how about HPS-EngineeringRun2015-v1?
Thanks, Matt
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
To unsubscribe from the HPS-SOFTWARE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=HPS-SOFTWARE&A=1
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
To unsubscribe from the HPS-SOFTWARE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=HPS-SOFTWARE&A=1