1 / 13

T1008 status

T1008 status . W.Baldini for the Ferrara and Padova SuperB -IFR Group . R&D for the SuperB Instrumented Flux Return . Muon Identification E< 5GeV Superconducting solenoid F lux R eturn I nstrumented with active material

trory
Download Presentation

T1008 status

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. T1008 status W.Baldini for the Ferrara and PadovaSuperB-IFR Group

  2. R&D for the SuperB Instrumented Flux Return • Muon Identification E< 5GeV • Superconducting solenoid Flux Return Instrumented with active material • Plastic scintillator bars readout through WLS fibers and Silicon Photo-Multipliers (SiPM) • Baseline layout to be tested on beam with a prototype • TDR to be written in spring…

  3. The IFR Baseline Detection Technique • Magnet Flux Return instrumented to detect Muons and KL • BaBar-like detector with hexagonal barrel and two encaps • Plan to re-use BaBar IFR structure, adding iron to improve μ-ID • Scintillator as active material to cope with higher flux of particles • Minos-like scintillator bars readout through WLS fibers and Silicon Photo-Multipliers • 8-9 active • layers Endcap Barrel μ

  4. The Prototype Iron Active Layers (Pizza Boxes) Prototype • Iron: 60x60x92 cm3, 9 slots for the active layers • up to 9 active layers readout together • 4 Time Readout (TDC-RO) “standard “ • 4 Binary Readout (BiRo) “standard” • 4 special modules to study different • fibers or SiPM geometry Active Layer (“pizza box”)

  5. Summary of activities • Installation: Oct 18-19 • Security walkthrough: Oct 19, first beam: Oct 19 • Trigger and apparatus setting up • Cherenkov and beam studies: • Cherenkov pressure scan at 3 and 4 GeV • Collimators ( MT4CH1, MT4CV1) scan: 30 – 60mm aperture • The above studies took a few days due to the difficulty to find muon/pion thresholds on the Cherenkov and to study the beam composition • Data taking at 4 GeV and 3 GeV (no 2 GeV)

  6. Cherenkov threshold scans

  7. Cherenkov pressure scan: 8 GeV (N2) July data Expected pion thres.: 7.5 psi Expected muon thres.: 4.3 psi (cher1xS1xS2) counts/ beam counts N2 Pressure (psi)

  8. Cherenkov pressure scan: 6 GeV (N2) July data Exp. Muonthres. : 7.7 psi Exp. Muonthres.: 13.4 psi Normalized Cherenkov counts Normalized S1xS2xC1 counts

  9. Cherenkov pressure scan: 4 GeV (N2) July data Exp. Muon thres: 17.3 psi

  10. Cherenkov pressure scan C4F8O 4-GeV Muon/Pion signal (C1) • “interference” of the two signals? • pion peak below expected threshold Exp. thresholds Pressure (psi) Electron signal (C2) Should be flat… Pressure (psi)

  11. Cherenkov pressure scan C4F8O 3-GeV Muon “peak” Pion peak Exp. thresholds Electron signal (C2) Should be flat…

  12. Event samples… m Data taken at 4 GeV on the muon peak (from cherenkov) Track length distribution Tagged as muons from Cherenkov The sample of muons contains also many electrons and pions Electron peak (?) Muons form our detector pions Layer

  13. Summarizing….. • All these studies are very interesting but…. we should use the Cherenkov to select clean samples of muons/pionsto study the performances of our detector…. (mu/pi identification) • At low momentum (<6 GeV) it’s clear that the Cherenkov “tagging” is not efficient (broad beam so optic not correct?) • MWPC DAQ not available  no info in our data • TOF info it’s not in our data as well, useful only at 2 GeV, data not taken • We have some difficulties in understanding the data taken…

More Related