Skip to content

Conversation

@BeritSchlueter
Copy link
Collaborator

  • Adding DEGG PMT matching
  • Changing typo in the in the scan functions
  • Changing on line in OMSim Hit that stricter compiler can run the code

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What was this change for again?

Did you check e.g. a single effective area direction if all other modules (especially DOM) still behave normally?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I tested it with the mDOM and the D-Egg. The change was needed because else my compiler was complaining. I can test the DOM.,

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is the need/reason for the change of measurement file documented somewhere?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I needed to change it for step 4, because else the beam started in the PMT glass.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I know, I mean if that is written down (documented) anywhere - e.g. documentation/notebooks/detection_efficiency_matching or some other suitable place. Also add a backup of the original file (from the measurement) to that, else it will be lost over time.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I uploaded the old file and it is written down in the commit of this file and also in the notebook.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks reasonable to me. Please wait for this merge to go through first in case of conflicts.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Previous merge is done which included the first batch of values you gave me. Since you did a few iterations they conflict at this point. Maybe to a quick side by side / plot comparison if some of those values drastically changed, but you already said that the effective area looks fine right?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sry for the late response. The notification email got in my spam folder. The effective area looks fine.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@BeritSchlueter can you resolve the conflicts?

BeritSchlueter and others added 2 commits May 20, 2025 12:53
This file had to be revised because the laser beam of the simulated scan started in the PMT and not outside the PMT.
New file is DEGG_used_z_compensation.txt
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants