Minutes of the HEC/FCAL Testbeam Analysis Meeting from 20.9.00. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. FCAL Module 0: Pion Results (J. Rutherfoord) John presented a new weighting scheme for the pion reconstruction studied by A. Savin. This scheme makes use of the distance between a given readout channel and the pion impact point. In total 17 rings for tha FCAL1 and 17 rings for the FCAL2 have been used. The total number of parameters is 39 when adding the tail catcher. The weights demonstrate that the shower center is dominated by electromagnetic energy. The parameters are driven by the electron to hadron ratio and to some extent also by the noise in the detector. This weighting scheme reduces the constant term in the energy resolution to zero while keeping the stochastic term at 90% - 100%. 2. FCAL Module 0: Electron Results (P. Loch) Peter compared the electron data with the Monte Carlo (GEANT 3) prediction. Adding noise to the simulated data yields a rather good agreement between data and MC for energy sums and energy resolution. Some residual X-talk in the data affects the shower shape and makes the comparison somewhat difficult. Nevertheless there are in the shower core differences between the data and MC, the data showing a larger energy deposit in the shower core. A comparison with GEANT 4 will be studied in the near future. 3. Status of the hec_adc Code (M. Dobbs) Matt presented the latest modifications done by Michel and Carla. This version 3.10 is able to handle up to 96 time slices. The header bank includes now the ADC crate temperature and the most recent HV to adc channel mapping. 4. HEC: Electron and Pion Results from August 99 Run. (D. Fortin) Matt presnted the results from Dominique. The electron noise distribution was not symmetric in the august 99 data. Therefore asymmetric gaussian fits have been used to get the most probable value and the sigma of the distribution. The electron energy resolution is slightly worse than in 98 and 2000, being typically at 23.4% for the sampling term in comparison to 21%-22% for the 98 and 2000 data and the MC prediction. This holds also for the pion resolution, where a typical sampling term of 78% and constant term of 6.2% have been obtained. 5. HEC: Electron and Pion results from June 2000. (A. Minaenko) Andreij presented his results from this year data. The nonlinearity in the calibration system does not agree with the corresponding electron data: there are differences at the 1% level. The signal shape reconstruction works well, typically the amplitude for electrons is obtained using the optimal filtering technique within +- 0.5%. The electron data show a spatial uniformity of +-1%, the energy resolution is typically 21.5% for the sampling term and 0.3% for the constant term. The sampling term is in perfect agreement with the MC prediction, while the constant term is predicted to be 0. For the pions an energy resolution of about 71% is obtained for the sampling term and about 6% for the constant term. Again, while the sampling term is in good agreement with previous measurements, the constant term is somewhat larger (98 data: 5.3%). The time variations of the reconstructed signals are 1-2 ns, reflecting the layer structure. Therefore any timing corrections have to be restricted only to longitudinal layers but NOT to individual channels. The electron to hadron ratio has been determined at different impact points and is typically 1.50 +- 0.05. 6. HEC: Electron and Pion results from June and August 2000. (W. B. Dowler) Blaine finds for the energy resolution of electrons about 21.5% for the sampling term and about 0.5% for the constant term. The somewhat larger constant term might be related to the fact, that there was no noise subtraction, and could be the result of an unconstrained fit. The pion resolution for the tertiary beam energies (august) seems not to be understood. But this might be also related to the fact, that no optimal filtering constants are yet available for this run period. 7. HEC: Muon Results from June and August 2000. (M. Levitsky) Andreij presented the results from Mikhail. For channels which are not affected by some larger noise, the typical signal to noise ratio is 5-6. The horizontal and vertical scan show clearly the crack and tie rod positions and can thus be used for the overall alignment. 8. NIM paper: Discussion. (All) The discussion shows that there is a strong request to have a NIM paper as soon as possible. Given the previous consensus to focus on this years results, there should be no major problems. The non-linearity terms in the calibration constants have yet to be understood, the electron/muon ratio has yet to be determined including the systematic error. The conclusion is, that the results to be presented at the CALOR2000 meeting should be the main input to the NIM paper. P.S. has agreed to try to get a draft ready for the next meeting, provided that the 'draft' has passed a reasonable threshold in quality. According to the previous agreement the following groups have signed up for preparing a '0-version': a) Design Requirements and Mechanics: C. Oram b) Electronics H. Oberlack / (L. Kurchaninov) c) Beam Setup + Operation (done) P. Schacht d) Purity (done, to be updated) C. Zeitnitz e) Data Analysis M. Lefebvre f) MC A. Kiryunin g) Electron Results M. Lefebvre h) Muon Results M. Levitsky / P. Schacht i) Pion Results A. Minaenko / P. Schacht 'Editorial Commitee' M. Lefebvre / P. Schacht