1 / 8

Optimizing TC and Time Resolution for MEG2 in Fukuoka 2013

This study discusses the current TC time resolution for MEG2 on behalf of the Italian TC group in Fukuoka. The intrinsic TC resolution at BTF is approximately 40 ps, with degradation due to B and a large dynamic range resulting in an expected time resolution of 50 ps. Additional degradation due to DRS is measured at 60 ps, with the dominant contribution from sigma(TC+DRS) calculated at 60 ps. An upgrade to the TC time resolution is proposed to achieve better results in MEG2 experiments. Comparisons between Hamamatsu and AdvanSid SiPM stability and performance suggest AdvanSid as the preferred choice. The study highlights the importance of small thermal coefficients on SiPM stability for accurate time resolution.

abdul-young
Download Presentation

Optimizing TC and Time Resolution for MEG2 in Fukuoka 2013

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. SiPM for MEG2 On behalf of the italianTC group Fukuoka 23 Oct 2013

  2. Current TC time resolution Intrinsic TC resolution at BTF is ~40 ps In MEG degradation due to B and to large dynamic range 40 ps → 50 ps expected Additional degradation due to DRS (DrS(t) ~30-50ps) → 60 ps (measured with triple, 65 ps is an overestimation)

  3. Current teresolution Dominant contribution from t (TC+DRS) = (BTF)(1+ (MEG))+ (DRS) = 40x(1 + 0.25) + 40 = 60 ps (BTF)intrinsec (from BTF) (MEG) relative degradation due to B (low G), large signal dynamic range (DRS) due to DRS

  4. Upgrade TC time resolution Resolution s(tTC) = 30 (33) ps measured MEG Additional error (B, extra dynamic range): 1.1 Reduced DRS error: 25 ps Calibration: 30 ps(???)

  5. Upgrade teresolution MEG MEG2(my) MEG2(proposal) Intrinsec 40 ps → 30 ps 35 ps MEG factor 0.25 0.1 DRS 40 ps 25 ps TC calib 40 ps 30 ps Le/c 75 ps 35 ps 11 ps --------------------------------------------------- te107 ps63 ps 37 ps t 67 ps → 64 ps 76 ps ---------------------------------------------------- te 122 ps90 ps84 ps

  6. tein alternative scenarios • tTC intrinsic = 20 ps -> te = 87 ps • tTC intrinsic = 30 ps -> te = 90 ps (Hamamatsu) • tTC intrinsic = 33 ps -> te = 91 ps (AdvanSId) • tTC intrinsic = 40 ps -> te = 93 ps • s(calibration) = 30ps • The change are tiny. • Limit on->e scales linearly with resolution • But 1 more week/y per extra calibration or commissioning would waste a 3% gain

  7. Calibration and (te Relative calibration between TC counter (and with XEC) can strongly influence (te) Stability of the SiPM is of important In particular the thermal coefficients dV/dT should be as small as possible That is a relevant parameter for devices with comparable s(tTC) dV/dT = 50 mV/oC for (Hamamatsu) dV/dT = 25 mV/oC for (AdvanSid)

  8. Conclusion Hamamatsu and AdvanSid are equivalent from the point of view of the effect on tetime resolution AdvanSid offers better performance from the point of view of stability that may allow precise calibration AdvanSid is our preferred choice for MEG2

More Related