1 / 3

Comparison of UHECR Experiments

Comparison of UHECR Experiments. Model Procedures (Instrument, Maksutov Baseline). Basic Assumptions Wide FOV Maksutov Optics with 9.6 m 2 Optical Aperture (Lamb, Pitalo; internal OWL notes) BG-1 UV filter Bi-alkali photocathode (Philips PMT Data Handbook)

ellie
Download Presentation

Comparison of UHECR Experiments

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. Comparison of UHECR Experiments

  2. Model Procedures (Instrument, Maksutov Baseline) • Basic Assumptions • Wide FOV Maksutov Optics with 9.6 m2 Optical Aperture (Lamb, Pitalo; internal OWL notes) • BG-1 UV filter • Bi-alkali photocathode (Philips PMT Data Handbook) • Light spot size assumed Gaussian with RMS diameter 0.6 - 2.1 mm (f(qView)) • Pixel size of 0.08o (2.9 mm diameter) assumed • Relative shower position (in angular pixel of 0.08o) mapped appropriately into relative focal plane pixel • PE signal calculated from 3 x 3 pixels centered on signal pixel. Gaussian spot is integrated for each pixel assuming a 95% live area and Poisson fluctuated. • Trigger formed by summing 3 x 3 pixel response

  3. Schmidt Optics: 1 Aspheric Surface Scott Antonille, GSFC Entrance Pupil Diameter – 250 cm Mirror Diameter – 580 cm EFFL – 191 cm F/# – 0.78 Max Field – 30º

More Related