1 / 10

Stability of the TOF calibration and the effect on phase space reconstruction

Cooling channel. D1. D2. Q1. Q2. Q3. Q4. Q5. Q6. Q7. Q8. Q9. DK sol. Target. TOF0. TOF1. Diffuser. TOF2. AMDG. Stability of the TOF calibration and the effect on phase space reconstruction. MICE analysis meeting, 7 th September 2010 Mark Rayner, University of Oxford. LDS.

kyrie
Download Presentation

Stability of the TOF calibration and the effect on phase space reconstruction

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. Cooling channel D1 D2 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 DK sol Target TOF0 TOF1 Diffuser TOF2 AMDG Stability of the TOF calibration and the effect on phase space reconstruction MICE analysis meeting, 7th September 2010 Mark Rayner, University of Oxford LDS

  2. Calibrated time of flight, runs 1590 - 2896 February calibration August calibration time of flight (ns) Update on beam characterization with the TOFs, and data analysis of recent runs

  3. Pixel coverage of the two calibrations Update on beam characterization with the TOFs, and data analysis of recent runs

  4. Dispersion leads to the fast muon depletion in August August calibration February calibration February calibration with TOF0 x < 99 mm Dispersive beam line: High pz muons have TOF0 x >= 100 mm Not yet included in the August calibration Update on beam characterization with the TOFs, and data analysis of recent runs

  5. Calibrated e+/e– peak, runs 1590 - 2896 February calibration August calibration 24.40 < t / ns < 26.40 24.45 < t / ns < 26.45 Update on beam characterization with the TOFs, and data analysis of recent runs

  6. Mean calibrated e+/e– time of flight February calibration August calibration Update on beam characterization with the TOFs, and data analysis of recent runs

  7. RMS e+/e– time of flight y = mx + c Parameter Error c 9.31e-02 1.085e-03 m 9.31e-06 4.52e-07 February calibration y = mx + c Parameter Error c 9.19e-02 1.06e-03 m 8.29e-06 4.39e-07 August calibration Update on beam characterization with the TOFs, and data analysis of recent runs

  8. February/August comparison Positrons (shaded squares) August calibration Electrons (open squares) February calibration Update on beam characterization with the TOFs, and data analysis of recent runs

  9. Runs with Q7,8,9 off February calibration August calibration 24.40 < t / ns < 26.40 24.45 < t / ns < 26.45 Update on beam characterization with the TOFs, and data analysis of recent runs

  10. Conclusion G4Beamline simulation of TOF positron calibration runs 1590 - 1591 • Bias on p given by bias on time of flight and path length • Possible calibration drift of order 0.05 ns * c = 15 mm • G4Beamline simulation of positron path length = 4 mm + Dz • Can we explain the positron time of flight width? • (TOF resolution of 70 ps)2 + (MC path length width of 10 ps)2 != (Observed 100 ps)2 • 0.5 ns shift in muon peak  12% momentum shift at 250 MeV/c Update on beam characterization with the TOFs, and data analysis of recent runs

More Related