1 / 22

SATRA – Results review and Future Plans

SATRA – Results review and Future Plans. Hagar Landsman UW MADISON. SATRA – Zenith Reconstruction: Time differences. Simulated time delays (hole 16) Ray Traces. Top antenna. Bottom antenna. Source. Simulated results: Top antenna ~14ns Bottom Antenna ~137ns. Chris Weaver.

nparrish
Download Presentation

SATRA – Results review and Future Plans

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. SATRA – Results review and Future Plans Hagar Landsman UW MADISON

  2. SATRA – Zenith Reconstruction:Time differences

  3. Simulated time delays (hole 16)Ray Traces Top antenna Bottom antenna Source Simulated results: Top antenna ~14ns Bottom Antenna ~137ns Chris Weaver

  4. Pulser tests, method: • Run DOMCal to get ATWD bin frequency (ATWD sampling speed can be modified between 1ns/bin to ~20ns/bin) • Run in LC mode between two satra antennas (same dry hole, -5m and -35m deep). Time window set to /pm ~200ns. • Set threshold so no triggers are recorded. 0 hits. • Start pulser • Capture WF - save ATWD WF, save mb time stamp (25 ns resolution). • Based on WF features, correct mb time stamp from 25ns resolution to <5 ns resolution • The pulsers used are on: Sally -250m,

  5. Some WF recorded in hole 16: Bottom antenna -35m Top antenna -5m

  6. SATRA Pair average WF Hole 8 Must figure out what is going on with amplitudes! SATRA Pair average WF Hole 9 SATRA Pair average WF Hole 16 Top antenna Bottom antenna

  7. Time difference between first and second hitBottom antennas only Simulated results: Hole 8: ~62 ns Hole 9: ~88 ns Hole 16: ~137 ns

  8. Time difference between antennasUsing mb clock only Simulated results: Hole 8: ~7.2 ns Hole 9: ~28 ns Hole 16: ~49 ns

  9. Time difference between antennas on the same clusterATWD 1.6 ns/bin Simulated results: Hole 8: ~7.2 ns Hole 9: ~28 ns Hole 16: ~49 ns After mb correction (1.6 ns/bin)

  10. Sim: Time diff between top and bottom antennas Chris Weaver

  11. Sim: Time diff between direct and indirect rays Chris Weaver

  12. Next: • Refine ATWD pulse time extraction • Power analysis • Limits on n(z) • Tried to do attenuation measurement, not looking feasible:

  13. Background channel (1ms)Response to CW

  14. Problems in using it for attenuation like measurements: Bottom SATRA on Hole 16: 400 Mhz (Red) has more power than 285 Mhz (Black) Bottom SATRA on Hole 8: 285 Mhz (Black) has more power than 400 Mhz (red)

  15. SATRA Analyses • Feasibility of transient method: • Reconstruction (1 string, multiple strings) • WF/Threshold separation • n(z): Advantages of being shallow • Improve ATWD features • More ACU data • Noise measurements • IA Antennas info • ? • … • …

  16. Refernces: • http://wiki.icecube.wisc.edu/index.php/Satra_status_2 • http://wiki.icecube.wisc.edu/index.php/Satra_status_2

  17. Backup

  18. Time difference between antennasATWD 3.2 ns/bin Simulated results: Hole 8: ~7.2 ns Hole 9: ~28 ns Hole 16: ~49 ns

  19. Hole 9, Top antenna

More Related