Plots for LoI Download ZIP Update 070819 Download PDF

Combined Xi vs. Number of Particles Plots with and without high xi values.

ABCD for 4 layer detector for 1.0J laser and 17.5GeV (TRIDENT) - Particles have way less energy, therefore bigger losses for smaller detector (c1,c2)

e- (left) and e+ (right) in first layer for 1.0J laser and 17.5GeV (TRIDENT)

hitmap for e+(left of 0) and e+ (right of 0) 1J, 17.5 GeV (TRIDENT)

money plot for e+ 1J, 17.5 GeV (TRIDENT)

x and y distributions
Positron x and y distributions in first detector layer for 14 GeV produced

27.06.19
Additional requested plots
Electron and Positron Energy Distribution for 14 GeV produced

Electron and Positron Energy Distribution for 14 GeV in Detector

Electron and Positron Energy Distribution for 17.5 GeV produced

Electron and Positron Energy Distribution for 17.5 GeV in Detector

Hitmap in first detector layer for 14 GeV (left) and 17.5 GeV (right)

Particle Energy vs. Position plots

25.06.19
Some thoughts on this plots: Der Yield bei 14 GeV ist sehr viel niedriger als bei 17.5. Etwa 2 orders of magnitude. Laesst sich aber durch mehr statistik auffangen, das verhalten bei steigendem Xi ist zumindest im simulierten Detector von der gleichen Shape. Der Unterschied zwischen einem und zwei Staves ist wirklich marginal. Der zweite Stave faengt wirklich nur den aussersten Tail von low energy Positronen ein, und bringt eine verbesserung im promille-bereich (vergleiche C1 und C2), von daher scheint es mir sinnvoll, darueber nachzudenken, wirklich nur ein stave auf jeder seite pro tracking layer zu verwenden.
ABCD for 17.5 GeV, C includes hitting first and 4th plane of the tracker

Values of ABCD-method for 17.5 GeV Positrons per Shot | Effizienz der Detection

A: 53.793 Effizienz: 1
B: 53.793 Effizienz: 1
C1: 53.3147 Effizienz: 0.991109
C2: 53.791 Effizienz: 0.999963
D1: 53.29 Effizienz: 0.990649
D2: 53.731 Effizienz: 0.998847

ABCD for 14 GeV, C includes hitting first and 4th plane of the tracker

Values of ABCD-method for 14 GeV Positrons per Shot | Effizienz der Detection

A: 0.694336 Effizienz: 1
B: 0.694336 Effizienz: 1
C1: 0.689754 Effizienz: 0.993401
C2: 0.694256 Effizienz: 0.999884
D1: 0.68953 Effizienz: 0.993078
D2: 0.69312 Effizienz: 0.998248

Yields for different Xi values. Nominal Xi.

5.02.18
Finalized the new LaserPower vs. Particle Number Plots for 5m and 12m

6.02.18
Relevant sources of uncertainties for electron number measurement in order of implementation:
Occupancy (more than 1 electron/pixel)
Pixel size / resolution (take middle of each pitch/bin for energy reco)
Overlap at Pixel border
Pixel Efficiency (expected to be close to 100%)

7.02.18
Energy vs. x position in Detector. Somehow this shape is strange. will have to look into it next week.

11.02.18
producing files according to meeting.
Energy of Positrons 5m	Energy of Positrons 12m
average Particles in the Detector 5m Der leichte Anstieg von rechts nach links ist weiterhin vorhanden.	average Particles in the Detector 12m

needs to be fixed, otherwise all other plots might be spoiled

13.02.18
Energy X distribution profiles (plot from 07.02.18) Something unphysical is going on here
Profile if x vs.Energy plot X-Axis: Deflection \| Y-Axis: Energy	Profile if x vs.Energy plot with exchanged axis X-Axis: Energy \| Y-Axis: Deflection this shows better the drop off at high energies. if this where true, 16 GeV positrons would be deflected more than 10 GeV

15.02.18
Comparison to same plots done with old code. could no isolate the problem in any physical property, code comparison done, searching for mistake and if it only affects this plot or all other plots too
old code	actual code version

21.02.18
Update on the position issue: Bug has been found, see below, now it looks fine. Was a special case for the magnet used in the polarimeter.
Electrons for 1 Joule Laser Energy:	positrons for 1 Joule Laser Energy:

07.03.19
New "Money Plots" including different energy bins
Comparison of 5m and 12m	5m inluding different energy bins
12m inluding different energy bins

9.04.19
ABCD sceme is working

Gab noch ein Problem mit der Eventnummerierung... Jetzt aber geloest. Reminder:
A: Alle Positronen die erzeugt wurden
B: Positronen mit E>1GeV, und innerhalb der Magnetapertur
C:Alle Positronen im Detector mit 1m x 0.15cm
D: Verlust durch Maximale Positronen pro Pixel = 1 per Bunchcrossing
Beispiel: 12m Laser to IP,1.0J Laser 1.4T, 1m drift, Detector 1m x 0.15m, Pixelgrosse in um.

   N_pos
A: 4.781 Effizienz: 1
B: 4.767 Effizienz: 0.997072
C: 4.767 Effizienz: 0.997072
D: (1000000x150000) 0.989 Effizienz: 0.206861 (genau 1 pixel)
D: (10000x10000) 4.274 Effizienz: 0.893956
D: (1000x1000) 4.72 Effizienz: 0.987241
D: (100x100) 4.762 Effizienz: 0.996026
D: (50x50) 4.765 Effizienz: 0.996654
D: (50x500) 4.765 Effizienz: 0.996654

Beispiel2: 5m Laser to IP,1.0J Laser 1.4T, 1m drift, Detector 1m x 0.15m, Pixelgrosse in um. (maximaler Teilchenfluss in Sim momentan)

	N_pos
A: 24.52 Effizienz: 1
B: 24.185 Effizienz: 0.986338
C: 24.185 Effizienz: 0.986338
D: (1000000x150000) 1 Effizienz: 0.0407831 (genau 1 pixel)
D: (10000x10000) 19.794 Effizienz: 0.80726
D: (1000x1000) 23.986 Effizienz: 0.978223
D: (100x100) 24.17 Effizienz: 0.985727
D: (50x50) 24.181 Effizienz: 0.986176
D: (50x500) 24.175 Effizienz: 0.985931

plots gibts leider erst morgen

10.04.19
ABCD sceme is working
5m Laser-IP;1.0J;1.4T;1m drift; Detector 1m x 0.15m Pixelgrosse in um; Alle Pixelpunkte erlauben maximale occupancy von 1

28.05.19
Plots requested from the Talk
0.35J, 5mFoilIP, Positron Spectrum	1.0J, 5mFoilIP, Positron Spectrum
0.35J, 5mFoilIP, Time Distribution	1.0J, 5mFoilIP, Time Distribution
0.35J, 5mFoilIP, Electron and Positron Spectrum	1.0J, 5mFoilIP, Electron and Positron Spectrum
0.35J, 5mFoilIP, XI distribution 0.35	1.0J, 5mFoilIP, XI distribution 1.0
0.35J, 5mFoilIP, Xi vs time 0.35	1.0J, 5mFoilIP,XI vs. time 1.0
Money Plot. Nominal and Mean Xi for 8m LaserIP Distance	Money Plot, only for 8m, with Nominal Xi.