flat vs cone</title</head> <body bgcolor=white> <br><br> <center> <font color=red size="+2">flat vs. cone-shaped endcaps</font> </center> <br> <br> <hr noshade size=1> <a href="../index.html">Index</a> | Previous: <a href="tracking_cluster.html">tracking with clusters and different strip widths</a> <br> <br> This is a summary of the flat vs cone properties. <br> <br> <table border=0 cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0> <tr> <td valign=top> <b>Cones:</b> <ul> <li> harder (more expensive) construction <li> angle of incidence ~normal -> minimizes thickness <li> angle of incidence ~normal -> strip cluster size ~1 <li> strip cluster size ~1 -> smaller data volume <li> acceptance marginally larger at large angles <br> See <a href="../../acceptance.html">acceptance for cones plot</a> </ul> <td> <img src="../jan06/flat4.png"> <tr> <td valign=top> <b>Flat: </b> <ul> <li> easier, cheaper construction <br> This is a big one <li> angle of incidence ≠ normal -> larger thickness <br> This is ~8% effect. <br>But this is not a major limitation, and can be mitigated <li> angle of incidence ~normal -> strip cluster size >~1 <br>This actually improves tracking resolution <li> strip cluster size >~1 -> larger data volume <li> acceptance marginally smaller at large angles <br> See <a href="../feb06/acc_new_xyplot.png">acceptance for flat plot</a> </ul>  <td> <img src="../feb06/pisa_angles_flatnew.png"> <tr> <td valign=top> You could trade higher resolution (because of clustering), which increases data volume, for strip width (50->80 um), which would lower it again. <td> </table> <br><br> <a href="../index.html">Index</a> | Next: <a href="">???</a> <hr noshade size=1> <center> <font color=orange> Last update 28 Mar 06