2nd edition Amasim and Photonics Stephan Hundertmark

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Visualizing The Direct Comparison Test for Infinite Series A Presentation by Pablito Delgado Sponsored by the Center for Academic Program Support (CAPS)
Advertisements

THE POWER OF ADDING AND MULTIPLYING Conceptually the idea of area is simply “the product of two linear dimensions” The notion of Riemann Sum is then an.
Field modeling J. Nelson 2/2/05 Tracking support meeting.
$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $200 $300 $400 $500 Graphing Events/ Relations Function rules, tables, and graphs Number Patterns Direct Variation Inverse.
Physics 430: Lecture 14 Calculus of Variations Dale E. Gary NJIT Physics Department.
Gamma calorimeter for R3B: first simulation results INDEX ● The calGamma Geant4 simulation ( a short introduction ) ● Crystal and geometry selection: –
R 3 B Gamma Calorimeter Agenda. ● Introduction ● Short presentation on the first ● Task definition for R&D period ( )
IceCube: String 21 reconstruction Dmitry Chirkin, LBNL Presented by Spencer Klein LLH reconstruction algorithm Reconstruction of digital waveforms Muon.
Irakli Chakaberia Final Examination April 28, 2014.
Reconstruction PDF in Inhomogeneous Ice Ribordy & Japaridze Université de Mons-Hainaut AMANDA/ICECUBE Berkeley – March '05.
Photonics Workshop Summary (IceCube style) Taking steps to address baseline change - Adopted forward-looking approach - Deliverables and milestones defined.
Geant4: CAD generated volumes & Lightguides SiLab UTFSM November 2009.
Solving a System of Equations by SUBSTITUTION. GOAL: I want to find what x equals, and what y equals. Using substitution, I can say that x = __ and y.
A statistical test for point source searches - Aart Heijboer - AWG - Cern june 2002 A statistical test for point source searches Aart Heijboer contents:
1 Calorimeter in G4MICE Berkeley 10 Feb 2005 Rikard Sandström Geneva University.
05/04/06Predrag Krstonosic - Cambridge True particle flow and performance of recent particle flow algorithms.
Photonics Tables Bin Optimization Kyle Mandli Paolo Desiati University of Wisconsin – Madison Wuppertal AMANDA Collaboration Meeting.
Bartol Flux Calculation presented by Giles Barr, Oxford ICRR-Kashiwa December 2004.
TRANSMISSION LENGTH STATUS HAROLD YEPES-RAMIREZ IFIC, January 12 th
Bethe-Salper equation and its applications Guo-Li Wang Department of Physics, Harbin Institute of Technology, China.
Review of Ice Models What is an “ice model”? PTD vs. photonics What models are out there? Which one(s) should/n’t we use? Kurt Woschnagg, UCB AMANDA Collaboration.
Comparison of MC and data Abelardo Moralejo Padova.
Photon Transport Monte Carlo September 27, 2004 Matthew Jones/Riei IshizikiPurdue University Overview Physical processes PMT and electronics response Some.
Geant4 Simulation for KM3 Georgios Stavropoulos NESTOR Institute WP2 meeting, Paris December 2008.
The Scientific Method. What is the scientific method? Collection of steps Attempt to solve a problem or answer a question Minimize the influence of bias.
1 A M Cooper-Sarkar University of Oxford ICHEP 2014, Valencia.
Status of ECAP Simulations for the KM3NeT TDR KM3NeT WP2 meeting Rezo Shanidze Paris, December 2008.
Facial Detection via Convolutional Neural Network Nathan Schneider.
Training & Communicating with Your Staff
Physics 312: Lecture 2 Calculus of Variations
Thinking Like a Scientist
Performance of flexible tower with horizontal extent
Sebastian Kuch University Erlangen-Nürnberg
May 17th – Comparison Sorts
Graphs of Rational Functions
South Pole Ice model Dmitry Chirkin, UW, Madison.
IceCube Collaboration Meeting Ghent, October 9, 2007
E The net electric flux through a closed cylindrical surface is zero.
Lecture No.43 Data Structures Dr. Sohail Aslam.
Mathematics is a language.
Systematic uncertainties in MonteCarlo simulations of the atmospheric muon flux in the 5-lines ANTARES detector VLVnT08 - Toulon April 2008 Annarita.
Differential Equations
Optimization studies of a tower based km3 detector
Computational Photonics
Software Reliability Models.
Proportions, Ratio, Rate and Unit Rate Review
Photonics Implementation
Deng Ziyan Jan 10-12, 2006 BESIII Collaboration Meeting
Geometric sequences.
Free sighed. “I guess you’re right.”
The Scientific Method.
Topic 1: Problem Solving
CSCE 489- Problem Solving Programming Strategies Spring 2018
Exam 2 free response retake: Today, 5 pm room next to my office
Geometric sequences.
Search for coincidences and study of cosmic rays spectrum
Title of your experimental design
Root dictionary ROOT interactive or scripts (+RALICE)
Impossible problems.
Relations And Functions.
Summary of yet another Photonics Workshop AMANDA/IceCube Collaboration Meeting Berkeley, March 19, 2005.
Helpful Hints and Tricks
MPA-140: Slope Remember, slope is all about a line and how steep it is, and lines grow or shrink in TWO dimensions, with x’s and y’s we can plot on a graph.
Photonics Workshop AMANDA/IceCube Collaboration Meeting Berkeley, March 19, 2005 Going the last mile…
Studies of the Time over Threshold
Chapter 9 Using Decisions to
(How Scientists Think)
Clues:.
Inputs, Outputs and Assignment
Presentation transcript:

2nd edition Amasim and Photonics Stephan Hundertmark Bartol 22 March 2004

History behind this implementation First implementation was slow, due to treatment of muons as many point sources Workshop in Laguna Beach (2003) showed great intrest to solve this problem Ped 'integrated' the photonics tables to get infinite muon tables the so called level2 photonics In the implementation the photonics coordinate system was changed Traditionally we talk about photonics a lot (it makes good workshops), but we never got it going We hope that the photonics treatment of the photon propagation will solve our ice related problems

Current Situation There are two interfaces to photonics availible: 1.) PSI in development by Thomas Burgess 2.) Scatserver developed by SH This is about the scatserver implementation Scatserver wraps the photonics call functions into TCP/IP calls

General Idea Implement the geometry conversion (amasim->photonics) Do low level checks, simple test cases for geometry Compare PTD bulk tables to photonics bulk tables => same input should produce same output The basic test is to compare the mean amplitude per OM for showers There is nothing like the same tables for PTD and photonics We check the mean of the mean amplitude per OM for many showers from a test stand, PTD and photonics runs on the same inputfile Main Goal: Solve our Ice related problems

The test stand: Isotropical distributed epairs of 10 GeV in a 100 m sphere The single downlooking OM is moved from the center of the sphere to +/- 100 m and +/- 200 m dist

What does the result look like -- 1st attempt Used the bulk ice s=24m f=0.96 for ptd and.. a bulk ice table from photonics that I had laying around on my hard drive ptd photonics What does this mean ? Photonics interface wrong ? Table wrong ? Both ? PTD interface wrong ?

Wow ! Let's try a new table... This is a photonics table I got from Paolo... (No blame here !) ptd photonics Wow ! => need to figure out what tables are used, ie. how they are produced Remark: I wanted to program the amasim interface not work with photonics

Produced my own set of bulk tables: ptd photonics - increased the dimensions of the generation volume - ptd like absorption => this looks already much better

Changing the variable we look at: amplitude vs. distance ptd photonics ...more intresting is the ratio ptd/photonics =>

The ratio is nearly constant as a function of distance Why is the ratio not 1 ? There are some efficencies Glass, Gel, QE ... What are the ptd settings for these efficencies... The statistics here was 1e7 photons OM @ z=0 OM @ z=100 OM @ z=-100 OM @ z=200 OM @ z=-200

List of efficencies from photonics README.eff Glass index of refraction Glass type (Benthos, Billings) Gel index of refraction Gel type Sensitivity, angular Quantum efficency model OM curvature correction Dynode efficency What are the ptd settings for these efficencies ? Made an educated guess ...

The ratio using my best guess for ptd settings in photonics Striking result: => By just changing the efficencies the mean amplitude changes by ~30% Question: Which efficency has the largest impact ? Is there one dominating ?

Went through the efficencies one by one always changing from the 'ptd-settings' only this one while retaining the rest Largest change in glass: Benthos describtion from dada_attn to Peter S. measurments then next largest is the description of the QE large uncertainties from input parameters we don't fully know

Conclusions for amasim/photonics interface there had been extensive debugging and comunication with Ped about the coordinates all test make sense by now the amasim/photonics interface works shown for the (shower) amplitudes but as coordinates are the same for muons and time access, the risks for surprises are low the next step is to check the timing distributions -> need for new tables after this muons and ice-layers ... there is a need for a more convenient comparison method between ptd/photonics tables this should not need to be done via amasim ultimatively we want to use Thomas PSI