dune muon monitor update
play

DUNE Muon Monitor Update Kerrie Dochen and Max Weiner University - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

DUNE Muon Monitor Update Kerrie Dochen and Max Weiner University of Colorado Boulder 6-9-2016 Overview Gas Cherenkov and diamond longterm data 2015 2016 April 2016 Gas Cherenkov and diamond short term data


  1. DUNE Muon Monitor Update Kerrie Dochen and Max Weiner University of Colorado Boulder 6-9-2016

  2. Overview ● Gas Cherenkov and diamond longterm data ○ 2015 ○ 2016 ○ April 2016 ● Gas Cherenkov and diamond short term data ○ April 6-7 ● Gas Cherenkov ○ Pitch and Yaw ○ Future Goals ● Diamonds ○ Turn on data ○ Future Goals 2

  3. 2015 Long Term Data Horn Off Horn Scans 3

  4. 2015 Long Term Data Pressure + Pitch and Yaw Scan Pressure at 45 psi Pitch and Yaw near 0% Horn Off Horn Off Pressure at 17 psi Pressure at 30 psi Pressure Horn Scan Scan Horn Scans Pressure increasing to 70 psi 4

  5. 2016 Longterm Data *Pitch and Yaw are set to a different value after scan April 6 Beam Off April 7 Pitch and Yaw Scans April 6 beam off 5

  6. April 2016 Longterm Data *Pitch and Yaw are set to a different value after scan April 23 Fire April 7 April 23 Fire Pitch and Yaw Beam half intensity Scans Beam half intensity April 22 April 6 Beam Off April 22 April 6 Beam Off Kicker Out Kicker Out 6

  7. April 6-7, 2016 ● Beam was off April 6 7

  8. Gas Cherenkov Detector ● Located in Alcove 2 and filled with argon ● Pitch and Yaw controlled by actuators ● Roughly at same height as beam line 8

  9. Gas Cherenkov Pitch and Yaw Scans ● Pitch and Yaw scan on April 7, 2016 at ~16 psi ● Measured integrated signal per proton on target versus pitch/yaw (% extension) Yaw/Pitch angles were roughly measured to vary between: ● ○ Yaw: -6.064° to 4.695° (12 inch actuator) ○ Pitch: 0.828° to 6.011° (5 inch actuator) ○ These ranges assume perfect beam alignment and need to be corrected using real data 9

  10. Gas Cherenkov Pitch and Yaw Scans This is the shape we expect to see at this pressure Center = 32.56 ± 0.03% Center = 69.560 ± 0.008% 10

  11. Gas Cherenkov Pitch and Yaw Scans ● Our data was fitted to the sum of two Gaussian functions which share the same mean: Key: Yaw: Pitch: P 1 = Maximum 1 P 1 = 15.4 ± 0.2 P 1 = 151 ± 5 P 2 = Center (or Mean) P 2 = 69.560 ± 0.008% P 2 = 32.56 ± 0.03% P 3 = Width 1 P 3 = 39.4 ± 0.4 P 3 = 353 ± 2 P 4 = Maximum 2 P 4 = -41.8 ± 0.2 P 4 = -178 ± 5 P 5 = Width 2 P 5 = 145.4 ± 0.4 P 5 = 437 ± 2 NDF = Number of NDF = 31 NDF = 12 Degrees of Freedom χ 2 = 14,097 χ 2 = 591 χ 2 = Chi Squared 11

  12. Gas Cherenkov Angle Conversions ● A = Actuator Length ● x = Percent Extension ● Axsin(φ) = Height of Block 12

  13. Next Steps ● Convert percent extension for yaw into an angle ● Pressure Scans coupled with Pitch and Yaw Scans ○ These were performed on June 7, 2016 ● Do we obtain the same results if instead of angling the detector, we angle the muon’s incident angle 13

  14. Diamond Signal Rise Studies ● Picked 10.5 day period immediately after diamonds were turned on ○ Diamonds had been off for multiple months in each case ○ Beam had been running 2015 2016 14

  15. Diamond Signal Rise Studies Ae (x-t)B + C A = 3422 ± 12.8 A = 5252 ± 5.3 B = -1.114e-6 ± 1.353e-8 B = -1.333e-6 ± 5.021e-9 C = -122e3 ± 15.6 C = -119.4e3 ± 6.871 % Rise = 3.6% % Rise = 5.5% 2015 2016 15

  16. Next Steps ● Consider turning the diamonds off ○ Few days ○ Few months ● Currently comparing diamonds to NuMI muon monitors ○ Need corrected muon monitor data 16

  17. Additional Slides 17

  18. 2015 Longterm Data with scatter plots Horn Off Horn Scans Horn Off Horn Scans 18

  19. 2016 Longterm Data with scatter plots April 7 Pitch and Yaw Scan April 6 beam off April 6 beam off 19

  20. April 2016 With scatter plots April 7 Pitch and Yaw April 23 Fire April 23 Fire Scan Beam half intensity Beam half intensity April 6 Shutdown April 6 Shutdown April 23 April 23 Kicker Out Kicker Out 20

  21. Diamond 1 vs. MM2 *Note: This is preliminary because we need to make sure we are using all muon monitor corrections 21

  22. Diamond 1 vs. MM2 *Note: This is preliminary because we need to make sure we are using all muon monitor corrections 22

  23. Diamond 1 vs. MM2 The diamond detector appears to have a more stable signal than the second muon monitor over this 10-day period. The muon monitor has a smaller distribution (signal varying only about 1%), possibly because it *Note: This is consists of an array of many detectors, opposed to the single diamond. preliminary because we need to make sure we are using all muon monitor corrections 23

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend