Tof new geom #796
Merged
Tof new geom #796
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…kerWithFrame_geo.cpp, but it is modified to accommodate multile sensors with dead spaces.
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
Co-authored-by: Dmitry Kalinkin <dmitry.kalinkin@gmail.com>
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
…ere are only half a sensor around the support ring. Geometries of BTOF is modified to match the technical drawing as close as possible.
… for the two halfs of BTOF. This eliminate the acts error: Layers are overlapping. I have no idea why the error disappears, but if it make the ACTS god happy, so be it.
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
github-actions
bot
added
topic: barrel
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
veprbl
previously approved these changes
Oct 17, 2024
Co-authored-by: Dmitry Kalinkin <dmitry.kalinkin@gmail.com>
veprbl
approved these changes
Oct 17, 2024
|
@veprbl bench:backwards_ecal exceeded the 2 hours limit and thus eicweb/eic_container failes. I check the logs and the snake jobs are progressing slowly until the very end so it's not like it's getting stuck in a loop. It seems strange to me that my modifications to TOF would have any significant effects on backward ecal. Do you have any idea what's going on? |
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to no response for status checks
|
@veprbl Unfortunately I don't think this issue is solved. I looked at other jobs in the merge queue and snakemake is still spawning hundreds of jobs on bench:backwards_ecal. |
Right, back to a drawing board. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Briefly, what does this PR introduce?
Endcap TOF geometry modified to match the newest technical drawings from https://indico.bnl.gov/event/24949/attachments/57520/98759/ePICTOF_WP2_FTOFLayout_09272024v2.pdf.
The current epic geometry has each ETOF module located separately. But the newest drawing shows that a single power board house multiple modules together. This PR groups modules together according to the aforementioned drawing.
Furthermore, the current epic geometry shows that sensors are placed facing front and backing alternatively across rows. However, the latest drawing shows that ETOF are double sided on every row, but with sensors placed below the service hybrid on the front side, and above the service hybrid on the other side. Each module now contains 4 small sensors instead of one big sensor.
Here's the updated ETOF power board configuration,
Here's the design drawing,
Barrel TOF is also modified. Staves are broken into two so an engagement ring can fit in the middle. LGAD is also located on both sides alternatively,
Cooling tubes are also incorporated into the staves,
Latest technical drawing shows that sensor width is half of what was previously proposed. Sensors right next to the central engagement ring are only half sized,
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Please check if this PR fulfills the following:
Does this PR introduce breaking changes? What changes might users need to make to their code?
No
Does this PR change default behavior?
BTOF ETOF geometries are changed.