- jwebb's home page
- Posts
- 2019
- 2018
- 2017
- 2016
- 2015
- 2014
- 2013
- November (1)
- October (1)
- September (1)
- July (1)
- June (1)
- April (1)
- March (3)
- February (1)
- January (1)
- 2012
- 2011
- December (2)
- September (3)
- August (5)
- July (6)
- June (6)
- May (1)
- April (5)
- March (5)
- February (2)
- January (2)
- 2010
- December (3)
- October (3)
- September (2)
- August (2)
- June (2)
- May (4)
- April (4)
- March (2)
- February (4)
- January (10)
- 2009
- 2008
- 2007
- 2006
- July (1)
- My blog
- Post new blog entry
- All blogs
Sanity check of the new IST and SSD geometries
Updated on Fri, 2014-11-14 14:59. Originally created by jwebb on 2014-11-13 10:40.
Figure 1 -- LEFT: Number of GEANT steps taken vs radius, for y2014a in SL14g. RIGHT: Number of GEANT steps taken vs radius for y2014a in DEV (11/13/14).
Figure 2 -- Accumulated energy loss vs radius. Comparison between DEV (11/13) and PRO (SL14g).
Figure 3 -- SFLM Material Distribution
Figure 4 -- Obtain density distribution by sampling random points. Density (arbitray units) vs Z, R and Phi. Units are arbitrary because I need to divide by the total number of points sampled.
Zooming in on the density vs z, I see three regions of interest:
1) -34.0 to +34.0 cm
2) -50.5 to -34.0 cm
3) +34.0 to +50.5 cm
These are approximate, but looks like it gets most of the dense material
Figure 2 -- Accumulated energy loss vs radius. Comparison between DEV (11/13) and PRO (SL14g).
Figure 3 -- SFLM Material Distribution
Figure 4 -- Obtain density distribution by sampling random points. Density (arbitray units) vs Z, R and Phi. Units are arbitrary because I need to divide by the total number of points sampled.
Zooming in on the density vs z, I see three regions of interest:
1) -34.0 to +34.0 cm
2) -50.5 to -34.0 cm
3) +34.0 to +50.5 cm
These are approximate, but looks like it gets most of the dense material
»
- jwebb's blog
- Login or register to post comments