Powdered TPB vs TPB Embedded in Plastic Matrix Takeyasu Ito Los Alamos National Laboratory EDM...
-
Upload
tiffany-booker -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
1
Transcript of Powdered TPB vs TPB Embedded in Plastic Matrix Takeyasu Ito Los Alamos National Laboratory EDM...
Powdered TPBvs
TPB Embedded in Plastic Matrix
Takeyasu ItoLos Alamos National Laboratory
EDM Collaboration MeetingPasadena, Feb 14-15
2
Light Guides and PMT’s
LHe
Neuv TPB coatingtpb:Solid angle subtendedby the TPB coating at thelocation of the 3He+n reaction
conv: conversion efficiency
Atrap: trapping efficiency
trans: transport efficiency
pmt: quantum efficiency
PMT
One or more thermal break(s)
Schematic of light collection / detection
• Requirements—20 p.e. per event (for particle ID)
3
Number of Photoelectrons
• Npe: number of photoelectrons
• Neuv: number of extreme ultraviolet photons– Neuv = Edeposit fprompt / eeuv
– Edeposit = 760keV; eeuv = 16 eV– fprompt = 35% for , 9% for when E=0 kV/cm p, t should be somewhere in between– Using fprompt=9% gives Neuv = 4.3x103 euv photons
• tpb: solid angle subtended by the TPB coating at the location of the n+3He capture event
• conv: conversion efficiency of TPB (~0.3 for TPB in plastic matrix)
• Atrap: fraction of the visible photons that meet the condition for the transmission by total internal reflection in the light guide (~0.34-0.50 if readout from both edges )
• trans : efficiency of the light transport in the light guide
• pmt : quantum efficiency of the photocathode of the PMT (~0.15 )
€
N pe = NeuvΩ tpb
4πεconvAtrapε transε pmt
4
• Extracting light from both edges of the side walls
• Need trans > 30%
• Operate PMTs at 4K to reduce loss due to thermal breaks (R&D underway)
A Possible Geometry (current baseline)
€
N pe ≈ 66 ×Ω tpb
4πε trans
≈ 66 ×ε trans
(for events that occur
near the center of the cell)
5
Powder TPB vs TPB embedded in plastic matrix
LHe
Neuv
conv ~ 1
LHe
Neuv
conv ~ 0.3
Note: Powder TPB only possible for the top and bottom walls.
6
Trapping fraction — readout from the ends
€
f trap =1− 4 ×2π sinθdθ
0
θ c∫4π
= 49.8%
Light source
Light that emitted into these cones is lost(There are two more cones coming out to the side walls that are not shown.)
7
Trapping fraction — tube
€
f trap = 2 ×2π sinθdθ
0
π / 2−θ c∫4π
= 33.8%
c
8
Trapping fraction — light source outside the light guide
c=41.5˚(n=1.508)
€
f trap =2π T(θ)sinθdθ
0
π / 2
∫4π
≈ 40%
c
T()
9
Fresnel’s equation
10
Powder TPB vs TPB in Plastic Matrix
Powder TPB TPB in Plastic Matrix
conv 1 0.3
ftrap 40% 35-50%
Area to be covered by PMTs (bottom and top only)
2032 cm2 103.2 cm2
# of 2” PMT’s 114 18
# of P.E.s ~123 x trans ~ 66 x trans
Remarks:•TPB in plastic matrix might give us enough PE.s depending on trans
•If that is the case, TPB in plastic matrix is more advantageous because of the smaller number of necessary PMTs•Both should be tested in the mockup, and also both should be modeled/simulated.
11
Light guide test box
12
13
Trapping fraction x transmission efficiency
Light source
3 in. .5 in.
1.25 m
€
f trapε trans =transmitted
generated= 26%
Assuming 1% loss per bounce
14
Trapping fraction x transmission efficiency
Light source
1 cm 1 cm
1.25 m
€
f trapε trans =transmitted
generated=14.5%
Assuming 1% loss per bounce
15
Trapping fraction x transmission efficiency
Light source
0.3 cm0.3 cm
1.25 m
€
f trapε trans =transmitted
generated= 2.9%
Assuming 1% loss per bounce