From: Josh R Klein (jrk@mail.hep.utexas.edu)
Date: Thu Nov 17 2005 - 13:06:59 CST
Sorry I could make the meeting today, but I certainly agree with Tim that
we should be very careful in picking which tubes we want. The SNO tubes
(which are not made any more) have particularly bad charge spectra, with
the newer Hammamatsu R5912's having a much smaller tail and better timing.
There may be better tubes yet, and one thing we can now examine is how much
better we might do with better tubes.
Josh
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 11:16:58AM -0600, Bolton, Tim wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> I won't be able to make it today.
>
> Tom has made some significant breakthroughs in patching "features" in Dave's reconstruction. He's now able to produce sigmaX=8 cm for 0.1 MeV positrons at x=y=z=0. This is about what I got early on in the most idealized model.
>
> Another thing that we came across were some studies by Auger of PMT. The HPK tubes we are imagining have about 2X better "peak-to-valley" ratios than the nominal SNO tubes in RAT. This might have significant ramifications for reconstruction. The general point is that not all tubes are the same, and we might do some thinking about which tube properties need optimization for us.
>
> Here is a very interesting link:
>
> http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~arisaka/auger/pmt_school/lecture_notes.htm
>
> Check out the slides in "SD PMT Specs and calibration"
>
> TB
>
> Tim Bolton
> Professor
> High Energy Physics Group
> Kansas State University
> tbolton@ksu.edu
> 785-532-1664
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Matthew Worcester [mailto:mworcest@hep.uchicago.edu]
> Sent: Thu 11/17/2005 10:37 AM
> To: bw_sim@hep.uchicago.edu
> Subject: meeting today, 1 pm CST
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Here is the connection info for the meeting today at 1 pm CST:
> Dial-in: 1-510-883-7860, at the prompt enter 826763 followed by the # sign
>
> Matt
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Mon Nov 21 2005 - 00:01:02 CST