1 / 17

Matthew Dimmock (mrd@ns.ph.liv.ac.uk)

AGATA S002 and S003 Coincidence Scans. Matthew Dimmock (mrd@ns.ph.liv.ac.uk). Overview. Issues with MGS Experimental versus MGS S002 versus S003 Ongoing work. Some issues with MGS. AGATA symmetric geometry. Passivation reduces surface currents. 2mm Isolant. No Isolant.

ianna
Download Presentation

Matthew Dimmock (mrd@ns.ph.liv.ac.uk)

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. AGATAS002 and S003 Coincidence Scans Matthew Dimmock (mrd@ns.ph.liv.ac.uk)

  2. Overview • Issues with MGS • Experimental versus MGS • S002 versus S003 • Ongoing work

  3. Some issues with MGS • AGATA symmetric geometry • Passivation reduces surface currents 2mm Isolant No Isolant

  4. Some issues with MGS • Potential mapping • Back region where all charges are collected due to deformed potential surface 2mm Isolant No Isolant

  5. Some issues with MGS • Electron drift velocity • Regions of unsaturated velocity 2mm Isolant No Isolant

  6. Some issues with MGS • Electron drift – not a problem with calculations but consequence of model 2mm Isolant No Isolant r = 20mm  = 290o z = 85mm r = 20mm  = 290o z = 65mm

  7. Some issues with MGS • “Charge sharing”

  8. Test experimental alignment x C1 B3 D3 A3 E3 y F3 • Line 1 • T1 aligned • Good agreement Experimental centre contact pulses Experimental segment 15 (C3) & 33 (F3) pulses

  9. Experimental versus MGS x C1 B3 D3 A3 E3 y F3 • Line 1 – real charge pulses MGS and experimental centre contact pulses MGS and experimental segment 15 (C3) & 33 (F3) pulses

  10. Experimental versus MGS x C1 B3 D3 A3 E3 y F3 • Line 1 – Upper / Lower ICs Experimental and MGS segment C4 and F4 image charges Experimental and MGS segment C2 and F2 image charges

  11. Experimental versus MGS x C1 B3 D3 A3 E3 y F3 • Vary MGS to fit experimental data 19mm Experimental and MGS segment F4 image charges 19mm Experimental and MGS segment F2 image charges Exp, z = 34mm MGS, z = 34mm Exp, z = 34mm MGS, z = 34mm

  12. Experimental versus MGS x • Line 2, 7.5o clockwise B/C • T1 aligned • Good agreement C1 B3 D3 A3 E3 y F3 MGS and Experimental core pulses MGS and Experimental segment F3 (33) pulses

  13. Experimental versus MGS x C1 B3 D3 • Line 1 – Upper / Lower ICs A3 E3 y F3 Segment E3 (Left) Image Charge Pulse Segment A3 (Right) Image Charge Pulses

  14. Experimental versus MGS • Sum of squares difference for experimental and MGS data

  15. Experimental versus MGS • Is sum of squares difference a result of poor time alignment

  16. S002 Versus S003 • Quantify detector twist

  17. Conclusions • MGS R5.02 is has been used to generate latest data • Two MGS data sets will be generated. The S003 set will factor in twist. • Basis sets have been partially generated to produce 3D chi squared difference to see where MGS fails • Bart and Benedikt code will be used to find best parameters.

More Related