Capybara summary for PR 1662

• rec_dis_10x100_minQ2=0_craterlake
• rec_dis_10x100_minQ2=1000_craterlake_tracking_only
• rec_dis_18x275_minQ2=0_craterlake_18x275
• rec_dis_18x275_minQ2=1000_craterlake_18x275
• rec_dis_5x41_minQ2=0_craterlake_5x41
• rec_e_1GeV_20GeV_craterlake
• rec_pi_1GeV_20GeV_craterlake
  ^{_{Last updated 2024-11-02T01:47-04:00 e5c8d4e}}

I need to test it, but I think the covered eta is up to 6 (we usually report eta<5.9):

>>>-np.log(np.tan(5.5e-3/2))
5.896151846465876

The inner radius of the tracking layers defines this. If the tracking layer is 3.5cm from the beam center, which at the distance of 630cm gives this opening angle of np.arctan(3.5/630).

Going to an eta of 10 is putting us in the vicinity of the Roman pots and the OMD, which are both silicon trackers, and would potentially allow for very unphysical tracks to be reconstructed with ACTS. I would recommend only going to eta of 6.0.

Yeah, I think there are couple mistakes in my estimate, I target 5.5 mdeg instead of 5.5 mrad. And also it doesn’t account for the crossing angle. Yet it works to at least have some seeds get produced, instead of not having any.

Based on what's discussed on Mattermost, it sounds like this isn't useful.