Computer time is going to be a limiting factor on how well the CHICOS aperture can be simulated. To estimate how much time will be needed I did a test on Lancer. Showers were thrown on the 2003 array, such that 100 showers passed analysiscut2 in each 0.2 log-energy bin, between 10^18.4 eV and 10^21 eV. Below 10^18.8 eV, showers were only thrown in the San Gabriel valley.
It took about 30 hours to generate the simulated data and another 2 hours to run it through analysiscut2. To throw 1000 showers/bin for 5 years would take about 50*32 hrs = 67 days = nearly 10 weeks.
Showers thrown on the arrayCode used:
simShowers
autoFit
macro to read in results
Showers thrown, low energy:
Showers thrown, high energy:
Input core locations (all energies):
Output core locations (all energies):
The output core locations have a cut on location such that they must be within 3km of a site. The map of acceptable core locations looks roughly like this:
It would be useful to know the core locations of the showers which reconstruct the most poorly. The above plots were made of data which had a cut on core location already built in, but I also have the same data without the cut. The following is a plot of showers which reconstructed with an energy more than 10x higher than the input energy, overlaid on a map of the accepted area (3km limit). Only one overestimated shower would be cut. It's hard to say how this compares to the data. Hopefully the rest of the overestimated showers will be taken into account by the energy-spread histogram.
The bump in the number of showers thrown is where it starts throwing over both valleys.
In order to get the aperture I need the areas... Showers are thrown over 360 km^2 in the SG valley and 810 km^2 in the SF valley. Total area: 1170 km^2.
