1 / 30

Status of test beam analysis

Status of test beam analysis. Aleksei Pavlinov WSU. Used provided MTEST DAQ incl. scintillator to define the beam, muon veto scintillator after beam dump + 3 stations with a total of 14 MWPC layers with 1mm wire spacing. [numbers below are all in inches].

rollin
Download Presentation

Status of test beam analysis

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. Status of test beam analysis Aleksei Pavlinov WSU Aleksei Pavlinov

  2. Used provided MTEST DAQ incl. scintillator to define the beam, muon veto scintillator after beam dump + 3 stations with a total of 14 MWPC layers with 1mm wire spacing. [numbers below are all in inches] FNAL meson test beam line Muon veto, Scint. Cherenkov Aleksei Pavlinov

  3. Key improvements of Test Beam analysis • Calibration procedure itself. • We had two problems: • a) Led measurements • b) Big difference in resolution for one run and for groups of runs Answer: Dependence of APD gain from APD bias -> we can not set the same APD bias after bias scan => gain changes. We have to recalibrate our detector after each bias scan. Aleksei Pavlinov

  4. Tracking of PWC. The satellite peak problem has been solved and the mean of residuals are properly around zero for all planes. Noisy MWPC-plane6 was removed from tracking. We can do now coordinate business with EMCAL. a) we have to do alignment between MPWC and EMCAL (can use all statistics in this case) => spatial resolution in vertical(horizontal) directions; => profile measurement (0 reconstruction – separation of overlapping showers) Tracking of PWC (Akitomo Enokizono). Aleksei Pavlinov

  5. Resolution – 3GeV All patch - 6.78%; N(el) = 1902+/-55 RP - 6.09%; N(el) = 362+/-23 LP - 6.92%; N (el) = 1321 +/- 45 Aleksei Pavlinov

  6. Resolution – 8 GeV All patch - 4.32%; N(el) = 206700; RP - 4.30%; N(el) = 68800; LP - 4.56%; N(el) = 76900; Aleksei Pavlinov

  7. Resolution – 16 GeV All patch - 3.70%; N(el) = 109200; RP - 3.48%; N(el) = 30200; LP - 3.86%; N(el) = 60600; Aleksei Pavlinov

  8. Resolution – 33 GeV All patch - 2.76%; N(el) = 4096; RP - 2.55%; N(el) = 1021; LP - 2.97%; N(el) = 2165; Aleksei Pavlinov

  9. Resolution – final picture( = 0.0) • We understand our device, accepted statistics and • the calibration procedure enough good. • EMCAL resolution result is reasonable relatively • MC and similar detector (PHENIX) Aleksei Pavlinov

  10. EMCAL spatial resolution • Exponential shape of shower (GAMS) • Log weight method Aleksei Pavlinov

  11. Shower coordinate – I (sh) Exponential shower model (Akopdjanov et al., NIM (1977) 441-445, GAMS coll.) Aleksei Pavlinov

  12. YCoG vs. YPWC b~0.54 cm(0.13 cell unit) b~0.85 cm => Phenix Aleksei Pavlinov

  13. Ysh vs. YPWC Aleksei Pavlinov

  14. Shower coordinate – II(log) (T.C.Awes et al., NIM A311, 130-138,1992 ) Typical value of w0 is 4-5. I am using 4.4. Aleksei Pavlinov

  15. Ylog vs. YPWC Aleksei Pavlinov

  16. 8GeV – spatial resolution summary • Both methods give approximately the same value • of resolution (~4 mm at 8GeV/C) • Y (vertical) direction has a little bit better resolution than • X (horizontal) direction. Aleksei Pavlinov

  17. Spatial resolution vs. beam momentum po+p1/sqrt(p) 0.155+0.57/sqrt(E) - PHENIX Aleksei Pavlinov

  18. Dependence of spatial resolution from parameters:b and w0 Best values: b ~ 0.13 in cell unit, 0.55 cm w0 ~ 4.4-4.5 Aleksei Pavlinov

  19. Shower profile – I Aleksei Pavlinov

  20. Shower profile – II Aleksei Pavlinov

  21. One dimensional vertical shower profile Aleksei Pavlinov

  22. Conclusion • We understand our device, accepted statistics and • calibration procedure enough good. • EMCAL result is reasonable relatively • MC and similar detector (PHENIX.GAMS) • EMCAL resolution as for short shaper time as for long shaper time fulfills the requirement – 12/E+2. • Shower shape business is not so understandable now Aleksei Pavlinov

  23. Aleksei Pavlinov

  24. Backup slide Aleksei Pavlinov

  25. Dependence resolution vs. entry point (8GeV/c) Aleksei Pavlinov

  26. Dependence MIP(MOP) vs. entry point (16GeV/c) Aleksei Pavlinov

  27. MIP , all statistics, 16 GeV, =0 Aleksei Pavlinov

  28. MIP, 8GeV, tilt 100, ncell=1 Aleksei Pavlinov

  29. MIP, 8GeV, tilt 100, ncell=2 Aleksei Pavlinov

  30. MIP calibration table Aleksei Pavlinov

More Related