1 / 9

IceTop Tank Calibration

IceTop Tank Calibration. Abstract This report outlines the preliminary method developed to calibrate IceTop tanks using through going single muon signals. The charge spectrum of

loyal
Download Presentation

IceTop Tank Calibration

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. IceTop Tank Calibration • Abstract • This report outlines the preliminary method developed to calibrate IceTop tanks using through going single muon signals. The charge spectrum of • each DOM running independently (without Local Coincidence) exhibits a clear signature of single muons. The Gaussian mean of the muon spectrum is reported as the value for the Vertical Equivalent Muon (VEM) for each DOM. The reconstruction of the raw DOM waveforms in terms of VEM is the scope of the IceTop Tank calibration. VEM is the fundamental unit in IceTop air shower analysis. Introduction When it is finished, the IceTop detector array will consist of 160 ice tanks, arranged in pairs on top of the 80 IceCube strings. First 8 tanks were deployed in 2005, followed by 24 tanks in 2006. Once closed, the tanks take about 6 months to fully freeze. In their first year, the tanks don’t reach thermal equilibrium with outside temperatures since the Freeze Control Units are kept warm by the light bulbs inside the FCUs. The 2005 tanks showed sensitivity to the light bulbs in their SPE rates, however, this is not observed in 2006 tanks. The muon response of each tank has been monitored thoughout the freezing process, not a statistically significant change has been observed. The major uncertainties in the calculation of the muon response have been found to come from the DOM calibration and waveform reconstruction. The design change between the tanks deployed in 2005 and 2006 lead to a 25% difference in the average muon response. The nominal design deployed in 2006 tanks yields 160 PE on average for single muons, while the yield is 220 PE in 2005 tanks. The variability from tank to tank is found to be about 8% for 2006 tanks, 10% for 2005 tanks. Each DOM in the same tank agree in their muon response within 5-11%, which is within the uncertainty of DOM gain calibrations.

  2. 1.8 m perlite 0.9 m clear ice ice Diffusely reflecting liner Description of IceTop Tanks The tank shell is a 6mm thick black polyurethane of 1.1 in height and 1.9m in diameter. A second layer of 4mm, made out of zirconium fused polyurethane, is molded on the inner surface to act as the diffusely reflective liner. 90cm of clear ice is viewed by 2 DOMs. The top surface of the ice is filled with 20cm of perlite dust. The DOMs register the Cherenkov photons emitted by the secondary particles of low energy air showers interacting in ice. Electrons, positrons and gamma particles convert in tanks yielding small signals below 100 PE. The through going single muons leave a clear signature in spectrum between 150 and 300 PE.

  3. The Muon Calibration Data The DOMs are configured in free running mode with no Local Coincidence and at a high threshold to enrich the muon sample. The nominal gain setting is 5E6 for all DOMs. 15min data is taken each week by TestDAQ, only 3min worth of data ( 20K hits per DOM) is transferred north. The data taking is furhter optimized by recording on the ATWD channel 1. Analysis of the Data An IceTop specific waveform processing module has been developed to reconstruct the raw DOM signals. The DOMCal calibration values are used for the DOM gains and the ATWDs. The residual baseline offset is further corrected by adjusting the waveform

  4. Analysis of the Muon Telescope Runs taken at South Pole in January 2006 I this note I describe the data I took using the UW-River Falls Muon Telescope placed on IceTop Tank 39B. This tank was deployed in 2005, and had 2.1 feet snow build up on it. The center of the tank was surveyed by the South Pole station Survey Officer on 2006/01/23. The Muon Telescope (MT) was placed at the marked center on 2006/01/30 for about 6 hrs running on its batteries and its solar panel as seen in picture. ( note: when the MT was picked up it was still in working condition after 6 hrs.) • Description of the data • The TestDAQ run was started by Mark Krasberg about half an hour earlier than I started running the MT. Five runs , each one hour long, were acquired. The data taking condition was optimized to reduce the DAQ dead time and record primarily muon dominated data. • The DOMs, 3963 and 3964, were configured in free running • mode (no Local Coincidence) at 1E6 gain and at 100 PE threshold. • Only ATWD0 Channel 0 was recorded. Under these conditions the TestDAQ recording rate reached 320 Hz. Figure 1 shows the usual exponential character of the time difference between consecutive MT events. The MT trigger rate is 2.7 Hz. Figure 1: The time difference between consecutive MT events

  5. DOM 3963 DOM 3964 The DOM signals Figure 2. The charge spectrum of the DOMs 3963 and 3964. The red histogram is from the run describe here. For comparison, the spectrum from the muon run taken in 2005/11/05 is also plotted as the gray histogram. The charge spectrum of the DOMs for all events are plotted in Figure 2 as the red histogram. The threshold effect seems to have pushed the effective threshold to 150 PE, cutting into the valley. For a full picture of the charge spectrum for these DOMs I use the Special Muon Run, run21080, taken on 2005/11/05. Both runs were taken using domcal version 5.11, so they can be directly compared without the domcal version uncertainties. Although the gains of the DOMs are different ( in run21080 3963 is at 5E6 gain, 3964 at 5E5 gain) in these runs, the agreement in charge spectrum is excellent. The Mean of the Muon Peak is at 204 PE for 3963, at 222 PE for 3964.

  6. DOM 3964 DOM 3963 DOM 3963 DOM 3964 The Coincident events The coincident events were extracted by matching the GPS times of the 2 independent data sets. The MT GPS times were 1 sec ahead of the DOM GPS times. After correcting for this, the coincidence search in [-2,2] μsec window yielded 9260 coincident events with DOM 3963 and 8900 for DOM 3964 in 4hrs 40min overlap time. Figure 3 shows the coincidence signal, as MT being 70ns ahead of the DOMs. Figure 3. The coincidence signal. The waveforms of the coincident events were extracted from the DOM data. The charge spectrum of the MT tagged events are shown in Figure 4. The mean of the vertical muon peak is at 199 PE, 1PE less than the all particle charge spectrum for 3963, and at 217 PE for 3964, 5 PE less than all particle spectrum of this DOM. Figure 4. Vertical Muon Charge Spectrum. The high threshold condition in data cuts out the flat lower part of the spectrum.

  7. DOM 3963 DOM 3964 Figure 4. The Vertical Muon charge spectrum (blue) superimposed on the all particle spectrum (gray). The distributions are normalized to each other to emphasize the peak positions. In Figure 4, the charge spectrum of the coincident events (blue) is plotted against the all particle spectrum. As expected, the vertical muons constitute the lower end of the Muon Peak, only a few PE less than the mean of the Muon Peak.

  8. Simulations Figure 5. All particle charge spectrum (black) for 2006 tanks (with zirko liner) yields 123 PE. All angle muons (blue) peak is at 126 PE. The vertical muon (muon with 0<theta<10 degrees) distribution (red) peak is at 114 PE.

More Related