1 / 29

Update on Beamtest 06 CU PSF study

Update on Beamtest 06 CU PSF study. C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe Università di Perugia and INFN. Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope. Beam Test Worksop III Jun 28-30, 2006. Jan Conrad Study.

helga
Download Presentation

Update on Beamtest 06 CU PSF study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Update on Beamtest 06 CU PSF study C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe Università di Perugia and INFN Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope Beam Test Worksop III Jun 28-30, 2006

  2. Jan Conrad Study • Jan studied the statistical properties of the Fit (with Toby’s function) and Counting (histogram quantiles) method for the PSF error estimation. • He generated random data followinf Toby’s and Landau’s function and then applied the two methods: • Fit for Toby’s Function • Counting for Landau’s function Conclusion: The two methods give consistent results

  3. Our Mc Data • Tagged gammas: • 4.5 M e- /angle (0, 20, 40 deg) • Beam Energy 1 GeV and 2.5 GeV • do not cover all the energy range • but we (almost) have the two ends of the energy spectrum

  4. Tagger Resolution: Close End setup From L. Latronico, G. Spandre, A. Brez VRVS 20 Jun 2006 Align at close end (beam on Al window) The range for 2500 MeV Beam has been extrapolated

  5. Tagger Resolution: Far End setup From L. Latronico, G. Spandre, A. Brez VRVS 20 Jun 2006 Align at far end (beam away from Al frame) The range for 2500 MeV Beam has been extrapolated

  6. DirErr (angular deviation)

  7. Tail Structure PSF Fit Thanks Benoit !!

  8. PSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Close End Front Back Number of Gammas within the Energy Acceptance Range

  9. 200k 250k PSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Close End Front Back

  10. PSF95 – Beam 0 Deg – Close Enad Front Back

  11. PSF95 – Beam 0 Deg – Close End Front Back

  12. 200k 400k PSF68 - Beam 40 Deg – Close End Front Back

  13. PSF95 - Beam 40 Deg – Close End Front Back

  14. PSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Far End Front Back

  15. 200k 250k PSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Far End Front Back

  16. 250k 300k PSF68 - Beam 40 Deg – Far End Front Back

  17. 25k 30k If NumTracks>0 PSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Close End If the Trigger could Select only events with NumTracks>0 Front Back

  18. 25k 40k If NumTracks>0 PSF68 - Beam 40 Deg – Close End Front If the Trigger could Select only events with NumTracks>0 Back

  19. 25k 30k If NumTracks>0 PSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Far End If the Trigger could Select only events with NumTracks>0 Front Back

  20. 30k 50k If NumTracks>0 PSF68 - Beam 40 Deg – Far End If the Trigger could Select only events with NumTracks>0 Front Back

  21. Statistics Summary Tables Ask For 250-300k per Beam Energy ? Ask For 30-40k per Beam Energy ?

  22. Jan Conrad Study II As Jan anticipated the Fit and Counting method lead to similar errors Jan is talking about events in the histograms therefore we have to compare his results with ours for NumTracks>0 Since we divided front and back events and we are dealing with “real” Mc Data, Jan’s estimation of 10k events to reach the 1% error level is in agreement with our result (events in histogram ~30k/2 )

  23. Beam Position Tower Border Tower Center Tower Crack

  24. Tower Center – Tower Border PSF68 Beam 2.5 GeV – 0 deg Front Back

  25. Tower Center – Tower Crack Front PSF68 Beam 2.5 GeV – 0 deg Back

  26. Multiple gamma effetcts

  27. MCS Options Comparison Front

  28. Conclusions • Number of needed gammas: • seems to be almost independent from the Beam Energy and the Tagger setup (close end, far end) • needed gammas within energy acceptance: • 250 k • 30 k if NumTracks>0 • Beam Position: • Tower Border seems not to affect the PSF • maybe our beem was too far from the Tower edge • Tower Crack affect performances • smaller efficiency • bigger amount of dead material spoil PSF • Multiple gammas: • affect the PSF • way to select single gammas not found yet • MCS: • small difference between Native G4 and OLD32 • difference bigger than 1%

  29. Final Remarks and Wishes • From our experience different positions (except tower cracks) should not affect significantly the PSF • Energy and angle dependency are rather smooth • Angular error tails have complex structures (see also Emanueles’ Talk) • we would prefer to have few well measured pointsin order to study the tails accurately • Minimal Configurations Proposal: • Tower Center • 0 deg , 40 deg • Number of gammas in the energy acceptance • 250k/ BeamEnergy • 30k/ BeamEnergy if NumTracks>0 • Extra useful configureations (peresonal priority order): • Higher number of gammas will allow to study the PSF tails more deeply • 60 deg Beam (enahnce thick layers conversion and PSF tails…) • Tower Crack @ 0 deg

More Related