1 / 13

Caldet Near/Far Analysis

Caldet Near/Far Analysis. Results presented at NDFE Cost & Schedule Review Only a little progress since then…. Caldet. 150 Channels of Near Detector Electronics 6 planes out of 60 on one side T11 Beamline from Sept. 7 – Sept. 15, 2002. Time of Flight. Cerenkov. (not to scale).

kitty
Télécharger la présentation

Caldet Near/Far 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. Caldet Near/Far Analysis • Results presented at NDFE Cost & Schedule Review • Only a little progress since then…

  2. Caldet 150 Channels of Near Detector Electronics • 6 planes out of 60 on one side • T11 Beamline from Sept. 7 – Sept. 15, 2002 Time of Flight Cerenkov (not to scale)

  3. Preliminary Caldet Electron Analysis • Electron cuts a la Trish: • Cerenkov ADC, TOF-Cerenkov timing, max energy near center of plane 1, etc. • 3 GeV/c electrons, run 31265 Near MIPs Far MIPs

  4. Caldet Electron Analysis, cont. • Not all runs are as nice as 31265… • 2 GeV/c electrons in 31398…. • Low response events (below 20 MIPs) common to both sets of electronics Near MIPs Far MIPs

  5. “Linearity” • ND and FD responses track each other reasonably well, despite obvious problems with electron selection • Not well enough – typical 3% effects, with high statistical precision Fractional difference Statistical errors not shown, but much smaller than differences Non-containment of electrons?

  6. “Resolution” • Less agreement than response plot • However, RMS is more susceptible to a handful of outliers • Effects of “missing” plane 6 as function of electron energy… Electron response RMS as % of response

  7. Channel Correlation • Study individual strip Near-Far response in MIPs • Combine several strips for statistics • Mostly within 2% • There will be different threshold effects between the ND and FD in lowest bin (ND-FD)/.5(ND+FD) 2 PEs or less in 1st bin (nd+fd)/2 in PEs

  8. Channel Correlation, cont. Expectation • Test: is s(ND-FD) consistent with photostatistics? (ND-FD)/expected error Observed RMS ~20% difference is to be expected due to secondary emission statistic - comparison looks reasonable Ratio of observed over expected RMS MIPs

  9. Looking at Channel Differences • Can we study features in Near-Far in QIE space? • Low PE stats makes it difficult to characterize anything as a function of one side of electronics N/F-1 vs. Near ADC N/F-1 vs. Far ADC

  10. Trigger Timing • We left trigger a bit early to avoid any doubt about containing rising edge • Alfons/Anatael plot • Expect very little energy 6 buckets from rising edge – O(0.25%) • Observe more, but it’s quite constant in energy All channels E (mips)

  11. To Do • Use new Muon calibration • Old version had requirement of both ends reading out – bias in case of threshold difference • Add more variables/histograms to analysis DST • Almost done… • Understand Near/Far issues in terms of basic channel response • E.g., timing? Threshold biases? • Understand ND response in terms of QIE • Any effect vs. number of slices? QIE Range? • Light Injection Data • Liz Buckley making progress

  12. Beam events overlap pedestal data Pedestal Seconds (spans week of running) Stability Studies – Dave Reyna Pedestals stability throughout Caldet run All channels, all pedestal measurements Single channel history Some small pedestal drift with time (temperature?), but only on order of 1% of a PE

  13. Stability Studies, cont. • Calibration stability over run of 1 week: • Measure response with charge injection, relative to calibration Single channel ratio of calibrated response, end of run over beginning of run (1 week) Fit point All channels, all measurements Calibration is extremely stable: 0.05% mean, 1% rms Response ratio

More Related