Status of the TOF Detector - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

status of the tof detector l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Status of the TOF Detector PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Status of the TOF Detector

play fullscreen
1 / 15
Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Status of the TOF Detector

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Status of the TOF Detector Matthew Jones Purdue University • Signals are generally smaller now than they were when we installed the PMT’s • How do we know? • How big is this effect? • How does it affect performance? • Do we understand why? • What are we going to do about it? • This talk should provide some answers to these questions. April 6, 2006

  2. Mean of ADC response distribution Average over 432 channels Changes to gate width ADC for 1 MIP 20% loss over ~1 year Attenuation length approximately constant?

  3. A Closer Look at PMT Response • Recent validation suggests degraded performance in recent data (CDF Note 8169): Some effects could be correlated with higher occupancy in more recent data.

  4. A Closer Look at PMT Response • A more detailed analysis of individual PMT response can quantify this • Main approach (CDF Note 7693): • Measure amount of scintillator a track must traverse to produce enough light to fire the discriminator • Define minimal length for minimum ionizing particle • Measure this as a function of z • Sensitive to gain loss in each PMT separately • Somewhat sensitive to changes in attenuation length • Unbiased, unlike the ADC readout

  5. Minimal path length study • Channel 5: one that ages gracefully. L=171x1030 cm-2s-1 L=135x1030 L=137x1030 L= 69x1030 Minimal luminosity dependence

  6. Minimal path length study • Channel 221 (other end of same bar) shows significant change: Far end Near end

  7. Effect on Efficiency for MIPs • Require enough light to fire discriminators on both ends of the bar: Feb 2002 Dec 2005

  8. Loss of Efficiency • That was probably somewhat pessimistic (not all tracks are MIP’s) • Nevertheless, the loss of efficiency is real and probably significant • Slow protons ionize more: enhanced proton fraction in more recent data? • Tracks that do produce hits will have smaller pulses now than in 2002 – does the calibration handle this adequately?

  9. Resolution from low momentum pions

  10. What’s wrong with the PMT’s? • Several parameters are somewhat correlated... They can change dramatically and unpredictably in a magnetic field. • Strongest correlation seems to be with HV: More gain loss Interesting... But this does not imply causality. Less gain loss

  11. Bad Bad Good Good Good Gain loss vs PMT serial number • Assumes that serial numbers correlate to manufacturing date (probably reasonable). Received PMT’s from Hamamatsu in 6 batches.

  12. Correlation with Timing Resolution Timing resolution at z=0 from 2002 data • Suggests that all PMT’s were about the same initially.

  13. Correlation with Timing Resolution • Appears to be some correlation with loss of gain observed in path length analysis. Timing resolution at z=0 from 2005 data

  14. Possible Courses of Action • Here are some options: • Do nothing and suffer efficiency loss and degraded timing resolution • Turn up the HV: might accelerate the aging? Or maybe it wouldn’t... • Replace PMT’s? Probably too many need to be replaced to make an impact. • Attach amplifiers between ends of cable and front end electronics? • We are discussing these to form a consensus on how best to proceed.

  15. Summary • Definite loss of response since early 2002 • Developed more quickly in 2005 • Probably due to higher integrated luminosity • Probably having some impact on physics • Dominant effect is associated with PMT’s • Several ways to proceed – good chance we can recover performance and run through the rest of Run-II.