1 / 20

UM PPS Lab Activities

UM PPS Lab Activities. PPS meeting January 22, 2012 Claudio, Curtis, Dan, Riley. Panel Structure. Two lead glass ( % Pb ? ) substrate separated by glass beads mixed with the solder glass ( frit ) Dielectric posts and ribs could also affect the gap (Vishay Sr. Product Engineer statement)

traci
Download Presentation

UM PPS Lab Activities

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. UM PPS Lab Activities PPS meeting January 22, 2012 Claudio, Curtis, Dan, Riley

  2. Panel Structure • Two lead glass (% Pb?) substrate separated by glass beads mixed with the solder glass (frit) • Dielectric posts and ribs could also affect the gap (Vishay Sr. Product Engineer statement) • Cathode strips covered by a layer of insulator (how thin/thick?) • Pixel cathode size & shape in CAD drawing topdie layer • Actual pixel slightly smaller due to dielectric slumping (Vishay Sr. Product Engineer statement) UM PPS Activities

  3. Large Pitch Panels • Glass thickness ~ 0.088”mm = 2.23 mm • Gas gap Measured 0.195”-2·0.088” = 483μm (450-500 μm) • Long side (HV): 128 lines in 12.8”  pixel pitch ~0.1”=2.5mm • Short side (RO): 32 lines in 3.2”  pixel pitch ~0.1”=2.5mm • Gas Volume: 330.2mm x 88.9mm x 0.483mm = 14.18 cm3 13.5”=343 mm 3.5”=88.9 mm 3.2”=81.3 mm 13”=330.2 mm 4.0625”=103.2 mm 12.8125”=325.4 mm UM PPS Activities

  4. Large Panels Cell Anode (RO) Pitch 0.1”=2.54 mm Electrode 0.5”~1.27 mm Space 0.5”~1.27 mm Cathode (HV) Pitch 0.1”=2.54 mm Electrode 0.55”~1.397 mm Space 0.45”~1.143 mm A(crossing):0.05” ˣ 0.055’=1.774 mm2 A(die): π·(0.05/2”)2=1.267 mm2 (~71) Packing factor =(Across+Adie)/2 * 1/Pitch2 ~23.5% 3 Vishay (VP1-3) + 2 Babcock (BP1-2) Ni-SnO2VP1 &VPC cracked 8 Vishay (VPA-E + F,G,H unused yet) Ni-Ni (VPD in Tel Aviv) UM PPS Activities

  5. Mid-size Pitch Panel • Glass thickness Top & Bottom 0.088” = 2.23mm • Gas gap: Vishay document ~ 0.0116” = 294μm Measured 188” – 2·0.088” = 0.012” = 305 μm • 128 (HV) ˣ 40(RO) lines • Long 128 lines in 131/167 mm pitch: pixel~1mm connector=1.3mm • Short 64 lines in 65/81.5 mm pitch: pixel~1mm connector=1.3mm • Gas Volume: 160mm x 80mm x 0.3mm = 3.84 cm3  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 175 mm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 169 mm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   - - - - 70.0 mm - - - -   - - - - 65.0 mm - - - -   - - - - - - 86.6 mm - - - - - -   - - - - - - - - - - - - 135 mm - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - 131 mm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 167 mm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  UM PPS Activities

  6. Mid-Size Panel Cell Anode (RO) Pitch 0.04” = 1.016 mm Electrode 0.0281”~0.714 mm Space 0.0119”~0.302 mm Cathode (HV) Pitch 0.04” = 1.016 mm Electrode 0.0174”~0.442 mm Space 0.0226”~0.574 mm A(crossing):0.0281” ˣ 0.0174”=0.315 mm2 A(die): (0.02”)2=0.258 mm2 (~82%) A(effective)=0.02” ˣ 0.0174”=0.224 mm2 (~71%) Packing factor =<Aeffective>/Pitch2~ 22% (not 64% as in Dan’s estimate  intrinsic PDP efficiency higher) 6+6 Vishay (MPx) Ni-SnO2 + 1 old broken ( support) UM PPS Activities

  7. Small Pitch Panel • Glass: Top(Anode)~0.063”=1.6mm Bottom~0.079”=2.0mm • Gas gap Vishay document ~ 0.007” = 178μm Measured 0.0150”-0.063”-0.079=0.008”=203μm • 160(HV) ˣ 40(RO) lines • Long 160 lines 10.6/9.8 mm pitch: pixel~0.6 connector=0.66mm • Short 40 lines 2.4/2.6 mm pitch: pixel~0.6 connector=0.65mm • Gas Volume: 10mm x 2.8mm x 0.2mm=5.6 mm3 10.7mm 10.0 mm 3.7 mm 2.8 mm 2.4 mm 2.6 mm 9.8 mm 10.6mm UM PPS Activities

  8. Small Panel Cell Anode (RO) Pitch 0.024”=0.61 mm Electrode 0.008”~0.203 mm Space 0.016”~0.407 mm Cathode (HV) Pitch 0.024”=0.61 mm Electrode 0.014”~0.356 mm Space 0.010”~0.254 mm Die: Squares 0.014” ˣ 0.014” A(cross):0.008” ˣ 0.0016’=0.0826 mm2 A(effective):0.008” ˣ 0.0014’=0.0723 mm2 Packing factor=Aeffective/Pitch2 =19.4% 6+6 Vishay (SPx) Ni-SnO2 Black lines (between anodes): full length barrier ribs. How toll? UM PPS Activities

  9. New Panel EMI Shield • Aluminum shield for PDP signal testing (HV) • 24” long ˣ 12” wide ˣ 16” high • Corners: 1.5” Al-extrusion + Copper tape (to be applied) • Top/Bottom: EMI Static Shield paper (holes for cables ...) UM PPS Activities

  10. New Cabinet (Curtis & Riley) Top & sides covered by EMI Static Shield paper + aluminum base Optical base in place with motorized 2D micrometer Re-design and re-build the mid-size panel support 32.5”=82.5cm 32.5”=82.5cm 19”=48.3cm UM PPS Activities

  11. Another MP1 Uniformity Run • Sudden end: the lab computer died for unknown reasons • Hit-map: higher response closer to the HV (smaller gap?) • Large variation: ± 50% (±20% on older runs, on used lines) • Similar shape for the 97 hourly hit-maps (inside errors): 1.7·106hit/20ch  87k hit/ch in 97h ~900 hit/ch·h → <Δ>~±3% UM PPS Activities

  12. Uniformity Run in Time • In 97 hours the rate decreases by a factor ~2.5, with an initial jump in the first hour (new lines)! • Same behavior is found for every channel points to a single line property (SnO2 degradation) UM PPS Activities

  13. Uniformity Channel Correction • Hit-map  channel correction factor: important to verify the stability of these correction over the 97h of the run UM PPS Activities

  14. Uniformity Channel Correction (2) • Correction spread  estimate of the error on them: 2-8% (worse for channels with lower corrections) UM PPS Activities

  15. 1mm Position Scan Revisited Result ingredients: 1) Run Hit-map fit (5 parameters): N·exp[-(x-μ)2/2σ2] + (mx+q) 2) Line by line corrections from the fit peak amplitude 3) Re-fit the correctedhit-map 4) Means linear fit on central points 5) extra σ(mean)=150μm 3) Gaussian  Breit-Wigner (5 par) N/[(x-μ)2+Γ2/4] + (mx+q) 0.979±0.002 (Full, no Δy) χ2=139.7/17 1.003±0.003 (11P, no Δy) χ2=10.83/11 0.981±0.007 (Full with Δy)χ2=11.84/17 1.005±0.011 (11P with Δy)χ2=0.974/11 UM PPS Activities

  16. Line by Line Response UM PPS Activities

  17. Corrected Hit Maps Fits Gaussian+Lin Breit-Wigner+Lin UM PPS Activities

  18. Parameters Sigma Norm Mean Const Χ2/dof FWHM Slope UM PPS Activities

  19. A Quick Calculation Theory: σ2data= σ2intrinsic+ σ2beam σbeam= 1.1 mm (GEANT) σBW ~ 1.4 mm (FWHM/2.35) • σintrinsic = 866 μm Best expectation ~300 μm • The width of the measured distribution could be larger because of: • Ionization starts inside the gas O(100 μm)  larger beam spread • Systematic: misalignment slit-panel line, correction, fit function, ... • The simulation could underestimate the spread because of • Extra material after glass (dielectric and/or electrode) • Glass composition • Photon contribution (only betas simulated) UM PPS Activities

  20. Conclusions • Positive impression on February 6 DoE lab tour (15’): very short introduction + two experiences and one animation • A lot of preparation work in the lab: • Panel geometry much more clear • New cabinet and EMI shield ready • Work on filling and testing our gas bottles • Wiener readout code now running in our dedicated lab laptop • The uniformity run on new lines shows a severe degradation of the rate as a function of time and a large channel by channel variation (total ± 50%), but quite stable in time • The position scan runs fitted with a Breit-Wigner (GEANT simulation best fit) seems to be better than Gaussian. To estimate the intrinsic resolution we need to understand the limitations of the simulation and the systematic errors involved in our data taking UM PPS Activities

More Related