T958!

• Fermilab Test beam experiment to study fast timing counters for FP420

• MOU between UTA, Alberta, Louvain, Fermilab (Brandt spokesman)

• Data taking scheduled July 24-31…

FP420 Collab meetingCERNSep. 29, 2006

Happy Birthday Lawrence (13!)

Collaboration

• UTA coordinating, providing grad student for summer at Fermilab for DAQ/readout integration, also simulations, Fused Silica, connectors, detector holders, Burle interface, electronics modules for test beam, etc.

• Alberta providing air light guides, electronics expertise, cables, simulations

• Louvain providing Gastof prototypes, amplifiers, cables, connectors, electronics expertise

• Fermilab providing test beam and support (and Mike!)

Critical Issues (all converged)1) ORC (electrical safety) Andrew gas safety (Mike).

2) Gas (Mike discovered Octafluorotetrahydrofuran! C4F80 replacement for banned C4F10 (can use latter, but $10k for a bottle!). Now need to get gas out of bottle…

3) Support stand (tech support from Fermilab)

4) Air light guides

5) UTA Quartic mounting box

5) Readout integration, tracking

6) Fermi Id’s, safety training

7) All parts (including PMT’s to Fermi)

T958 Personnel and Running PeriodFermi Personnel for July setup and run

Albrow

Brandt Pedro (GRA)

Luc (EE)Tomasz+Pierre (Post-doc+GRA)

Lars+John (EE)

But beam goes off unexpectedly July 21- Aug 11!!!

Sporadic mostly parasitic running Aug 12- Sep 14

(primary user Sep 7-10, 14)

Darn near kills Mike and me (heroic effort by Mike as only FNAL person): AGB at Fermi July 17-27, Aug 1-3, 13-16, 28-31, Sep. 1-3, 6-9, 13-14Arranged additional help from Tomasz, Lars+Len, UTA studentsSpurlock, Pal, Roy, post-doc Duncan Brown

Burle 8x8 MCP-PMT ADC (LeCroy 2249A)

Amplifier :HamamatsuOrtecPhillips

Constant Fraction DiscriminatorOrtec 934(9307)

TDC(Phillips 7186)

T958 Electronics

SMA

NIM Trigger, CAMAC DAQ,in parallel tracking with MWPC

SMA

Lemo

T958 Electronics

T958 Setup

G1 G2Q1

Q2

GASTOF Prototype

To be released from customs today!

http://www.fynu.ucl.ac.be/themes/he/ggamma/Cherenkov/

Alberta Air Light Guide

V2 with minibars

V1 with minibars

7.62 cm

2.54 cm2.54 cm

9.0 cm

3.7 cm

4.7 cm

1.53

cm

1.01

cm

2.54

cm

50º2.57

cm

4.82cm

6.4 cm

*red line shows where beam should be 1.97 cm vertically below top of box*green line show where we started 3*magenta line shows whereCENTER of beam hits tube

1.97cm

Where isthe beam?!

top view

WARNING:

Data analysis still pre-

preliminary

8/30: t G1-G2

two peaks!

9/06: t G1-G2

<70 psec/Gastof (2500V)

8/31 CFD 934 Output: G2 GOOD!

ZeroCrossing CFD output

8/31 G1 BAD!

Fuzzy gross, Zero Crossing

8/31 G1 with optimized CFD tuning

double peakseparated by ~1.2 nsec characteristic of poorly tunedCFD

2300 V

2500 V

G2- a Q2channel

CFD 934 -> 9307 kills second peak

for a (previously)

bad Q channel

Best Quarticchannels at 2300 Vhave resolution of

about130 ps ({1562-902})

2300

2500

HV matters:better gain,

smaller MCPjitter

Questions

• Why G not better than it is?• Why G so much better than Q? (G is intrinsically faster, but expected to be dominated by electronics) 90 vs 130 ps implies another 90 ps resolution term unique for Q (right now, I can only account for 40 ps)!

Timing Resolution Components

Detector specific: • G~2 ps, Q has other contributions: color dispersion (20

ps), position dependence (25 ps), number of pe’s (25 ps)

Common:• PMT (50 psec single pe at max gain;30 for 10 um)• Amplifier/attenuator (actually different)• CFD (not all same)• TDC • CABLES/CONNECTORS (not all same)

TDC Uncertainty?

expect <25 ps, investigating

2 channels differ only by 1 ns in cable length

Tracking (hot of press)

x (mm)

y (m

m)

6 mm

15 mm

x (mm)

y (m

m)tracks projected to Q1 valid time in one Q1 bar

30 mm

25 mm

beam “center”10x15 mm

G2-Q2_53

G2-Q2_55

Q2_53-Q2_55

G2~90Q2~130Q2,Q2~110 ->common term of 60 ps removed

Even Hotter!

Hottest!

Overflows Operating in common stop mode, if a start arrives with no stop in next 100 ns it

gives overflow when next stop comes Overflows: occurred at an unacceptable level

are bad cause no info on channel—don’t know wheter or not it had a valid time depend on trigger, tighter trigger worse-> more likely proton starts a channel, but doesn’t give stop

hamper ability to measure efficiency

*Need to improve this for next run

raw time;t=10 nsec!!

Some things not understood!

How to Proceed

• Learned a lot (still learning) but MANY questions have to be answered before we are convinced we have a viable detector

• Need better alignment, tracking, electronics, DAQ, analysis,

management, etc.• Starting to plan for next test beam (Jan 10?, later?), {some cosmics in mean

time?}