Proton Calorimetry/Meetings/2018/03/14

From PBTWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Minutes for UCL Proton Calorimetry Meeting, 14th March 2018 (D17, Physics & Astronomy, UCL)


Anastasia Basharina-Freshville, Dan Walker, Jordan Silverman, Laurent Kelleter, Matthieu Hentz, Simon Jolly, Ruben Saakyan


  • Interested in seeing dose deposition vs depth, even if not calibrated, dump into histogram and check what we see from both sensors.
  • Seeing huge variations in current. Is this problem for us?
    • If variation of current affects relative variation in sheets then it's a problem.
    • SJ suggest you can see variation in current but can wash it out if picking a 5 ms exposure on dlsr.
  • Consider 300¬†um scintillator sheets for very fine resolution around Bragg peak.
    • SJ and LK in perfect unison: this is fine for single energy but problematic when scanning different energies.
  • Good opportunity to check 5-stage tube if time allows.


  • Finished writing documentation for simulation.
  • Working on next coursework and CDT group project.
  • Jacinta Jap would like to know:
    • Where are the beam parameters used in the Clatterbridge simulation from?
      • SJ obtained Excel spreadsheet of Twiss parameters from Hywel Owen. As the scattering perturbs the beam a lot the shape should not be crucial. Making sure the energy is right is more important.
    • Who wrote the MCNPX simulation?
      • SJ only recalls Colin Baker using MCNPX.


  • Sucessfully converted CAD model to a GDML file.
  • Asks if he should import it into the simulation before the report is due (deadline is 26 March)?
    • SJ suggests to work on it until Monday 19 March and focus on writing report from then onwards.
    • JS knows what steps are required, only needs to implement them.
    • MH suggests getting rid of beamline definition in DetectorConstruction, import GDML file and reintroduce any missing elements one by one for easier debugging.


  • Will be around next year as he received offer from CDT in Quantum Technologies (woo woo).
  • Comments on Medaustron run:
    • Timestamps are separated by 3 minutes 38 seconds, i.e. our data taken after theirs. There are no sensible matches between datasets.
    • SJ explains that absence of discrete trigger means no concrete correlation between the two data sets. Adjusting trigger levels throws away events so may end up with different numbers between calorimeter and tracker.
    • SJ suggest that it won't matter in write up for project. DW can show spectra and should also focus on writing after Monday evening (19 March).
Personal tools