Tests with JT0623 & JT0947 at Indiana University Nagoya PMT database test results for JT0623 at 3220V: This tube has somewhat higher than usual gain. 5×10.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Richard Young Optronic Laboratories Kathleen Muray INPHORA
Advertisements

1 Electronics Simulation in the Photon Transport Monte Carlo Preamp model Receiver/discriminator circuit CAFÉ driver circuit model Examples Summary January.
Electromagnetic shower in the AHCAL selection criteria data / MonteCarlo comparison of: handling linearity shower shapes CALICE collaboration meeting may.
LI Gain Curves Peter Litchfield Calibration Workshop, 6 th September 2005  Beginning to understand the LI system  Beginning to understand the software.
Mechanical check of PMT Check base: Remove black tape and two small screws that secure the base. Tighten the nuts on the BNC connector for the HT input.
29 June 2004Paul Dauncey1 ECAL Readout Tests Paul Dauncey For the CALICE-UK electronics group A. Baird, D. Bowerman, P. Dauncey, C. Fry, R. Halsall, M.
Veto Wall Test Hyupwoo Lee MINERvA/Jupiter Group Meeting Feb, 13, 2008.
Veto Wall Test Hyupwoo Lee MINERvA/Jupiter Group Meeting Oct, 3, 2007.
Calculating the Beam Position at the Ecal for DESY Run (Independent of Tracking) Hakan Yilmaz.
Page 1 Calculating the Beam Position at the Ecal for DESY Run (Independent of Tracking) Hakan Yilmaz.
Veto Wall Test Hyupwoo Lee MINERvA/Jupiter Group Meeting July 18, 2007.
ITOP carrier amplifier test at Indiana University G. Visser 4/27/2015 (latest update) I use the recently (here) characterized JT0947 ch3 as input source.
1 TOF Aging Discussion Background information Summary of results so far Examples of gain loss mechanisms Diagnostics Possible scenarios for 2006 Discussion.
Update on MPPC frontend electronics development at IU
1 System Description (2-4) Gains from single photo-electrons in vacuum at room temperature (5-8) Linearity Test at V in vacuum at room temperature.
1 Beetle xtalk measurements with test pulse at NIKHEF, B1.4 and B1.5 Aras Papadelis.
14/02/2007 Paolo Walter Cattaneo 1 1.Trigger analysis 2.Muon rate 3.Q distribution 4.Baseline 5.Pulse shape 6.Z measurement 7.Att measurement OUTLINE.
Development of Multi-pixel photon counters(2) M.Taguchi, T.Nakaya, M.Yokoyama, S.Gomi(kyoto) T.Nakadaira, K.Yoshimura(KEK) for KEKDTP photon sensor group.
C. Seez Imperial College November 28th, 2002 ECAL testbeam Workshop 1 Pulse Reconstruction Worth considering the experience of other experiments using.
FLC Group Test-beam Studies of the Laser-Wire Detector 13 September 2006 Maximilian Micheler Supervisor: Freddy Poirier.
TESTING MOTOR AT LOW VOLTAGE AND SEVERAL FREQUENCIES MOTOR 20 HP, 230 VOLTS,1800RPM, TESTING VOLTAGE 10VAC.
MPPC update including plastic connector T2K experiment collaboration meeting 2007/4/18 (Wed) S.Gomi T.Nakaya M.Yokoyama ( Kyoto University ) T.Nakadaira.
R&D of MPPC for T2K experiment PD07 : Photosensor Workshop /6/28 (Thu) S.Gomi T.Nakaya M.Yokoyama H.Kawamuko ( Kyoto University ) T.Nakadaira.
1 xCAL monitoring Yu. Guz, IHEP, Protvino I.Machikhiliyan, ITEP, Moscow.
25th June, 2003CMS Ecal MGPA first results1 MGPA first results testing begun 29 th May on bare die (packaging still underway) two chips looked at so far.
Analysis chain for MAGIC Telescope data Daniel Mazin and Nadia Tonello Max-Planck-Institut für Physik München D.Mazin, N.Tonello MPI for Physics, Munich.
Development of Multi-pixel photon counters(2) M.Taguchi, T.Nakaya, M.Yokoyama, S.Gomi(kyoto) T.Nakadaira, K.Yoshimura(KEK)
Two-stage amplifier status test buffer – to be replaced with IRSX i signal recent / final (hopefully) design uses load resistor and voltage gain stage.
1 Development of Multi-Pixel Photon Counters (1) S.Gomi, T.Nakaya, M.Yokoyama, M.Taguchi, (Kyoto University) T.Nakadaira, K.Yoshimura, (KEK) Oct
MPPC Measurements at LSU Brandon Hartfiel LSU Hardware Group Thomas Kutter, Jessica Brinson, Jason Goon, Jinmeng Liu, Jaroslaw Nowak Sam Reid January 2009.
1 MPPC update S.Gomi, T.Nakaya, M.Yokoyama, M.Taguchi, (Kyoto University) T.Nakadaira (KEK) Nov KEK.
5 July 2010Ivo Polák, FZU, Prague LED notched fibre distributing system Calibration system for SiPM Ivo Polák, Ji ř í Kvasni č ka
MPPC status M.Taguchi(kyoto) T2K ND /7/7.
Development of Multi-Pixel Photon Counters(MPPC) Makoto Taguchi Kyoto University.
PMT gain check at Indiana University. Test setup inside dark box LED white paper PMT # JT0298 channel #2 (per HPK numbering) OTHER CHANNELS MASKED WITH.
Mar 20, 2005 Iterative pe finder: IceTop data compression applied to In-ice D. Seckel, Univ. of Delaware.
1 A first look at the KEK tracker data with G4MICE Malcolm Ellis 2 nd December 2005.
Nov 2002T. Ljubicic DAQ100 Calibration Needs 10 to 8 bit (and back!) conversion table Gain correction per pad T0 correction per pad.
Trip-t testing progress report
Feature Extractor Dima Chirkin, LBNL The future is here.
1 Oct 2009Paul Dauncey1 Status of 2D efficiency study Paul Dauncey.
Search for High-Mass Resonances in e + e - Jia Liu Madelyne Greene, Lana Muniz, Jane Nachtman Goal for the summer Searching for new particle Z’ --- a massive.
Performance of new MPPC Nov. 21 Korea-Japan joint meeting Takashi Maeda Hideki Yamazaki Yuji Sudo (University of Tsukuba) --- Contents ---
1 EMCAL Reconstruction in Pass pp 900 GeV 29/03/2010 Gustavo Conesa Balbastre.
Development of a pad interpolation algorithm using charge-sharing.
June 30th 2008Jacques Lefrancois1 CW base studies Last week June 24th at calo meeting : news that preliminary test done by Yuri Gilitski indicated that.
Comparison of MC and data Abelardo Moralejo Padova.
Calibration algorithm and detector monitoring - TPC Marian Ivanov.
I'm concerned that the OS requirement for the signal is inefficient as the charge of the TeV scale leptons can be easily mis-assigned. As a result we do.
Development of Multi-pixel photon counters(2) M.Taguchi, T.Nakaya, M.Yokoyama, S.Gomi(kyoto) T.Nakadaira, K.Yoshimura(KEK) for KEKDTP photon sensor group.
M.Taguchi and T.Nobuhara(Kyoto) HPK MPPC(Multi Pixel Photon Counter) status T2K280m meeting.
Performance of 1600-pixel MPPC for the GLD Calorimeter Readout Jan. 30(Tue.) Korea-Japan Joint Shinshu Univ. Takashi Maeda ( Univ. of Tsukuba)
DC bias circuit effects in CV measurements A.Chilingarov, D.Campbell Lancaster University, UK 9 th RD50 Workshop CERN,
June 4, 2009 STAR TPC review Estimation of TPC Aging Based on dE/dx Measurements Yuri Fisyak.
Feb C.Smith UVA EC energy calibration – g13 pass0 For pass0 data were cooked with CALDB calibration constants reset to nominal 10 channels / MeV.
Development of Multi-Pixel Photon Counters (1)
LED notched fibre distributing system Calibration system for SiPM
EZDC spectra reconstruction and calibration
Solving pedestal problem
Ioannis Manthos Laboratory of Nuclear & Particle Physics
Status of the TOF Detector
Instrumentation for Colliding Beam Physics 2017
Update on TB 2007 Xtal Irradiation Studies at H4
EMCal Recalibration Check
EMCal Recalibration Check
Status report Minjung Kim
Problems with the Run4 Preliminary Phi->KK Analysis
B. Genolini for the IPNO detector dept.
CAL crosstalk issues and their implications
Update on MPPC frontend electronics development at IU
Presentation transcript:

Tests with JT0623 & JT0947 at Indiana University Nagoya PMT database test results for JT0623 at 3220V: This tube has somewhat higher than usual gain. 5×10 5 is far from the measured points. Therefore I first try to look at the lowest voltage measurement point. G. Visser 4/24/2015 (latest update) I looked at channel 2 and channel 3, according to Hamamatsu numbering Channel 2 Channel 3

This is the same dataset analyzed on following pages. 2,200,000 events. note there is sometimes ADC saturation

Scope data exported as integer (ADC units), and then summed as integer.  No binning artifacts (except for real DNL of course).

crosstalk events P.O.U.W. (pulses of unusual width), mostly two-photon events ADC saturation crosstalk events (bipolar shape)

18326 events (0.83%) removed by these cuts (three lines + no ADC saturation)

Blue: with cut as above This fall is due to scope dynamic range limitation, of course. Not real.

Pedestal fit f(x)=a*exp(-(x-x0)**2/(2*σ**2)) a= / x0= / σ= /  events in pedestal  signal / = 4.5%

Rescale x with pedestal mean and theoretical scale charge/icharge = Melectrons (from assumed load resistance, scope V/div and sample rate). Fit whole curve (from 0.11 to 3.1 Melectrons) to a phenomenological form (red curve) for signal ignoring electronics noise + pedestal fit from before (as a fixed background). Really should consider electronics noise in signal, fixing same sigma as pedestal, this is oversimplified here. Signal in fit g(x)=b*x**p*exp(-x**q/c) b= / p= / q= / c= /  events in signal ( to 3.2 Melectrons) (expected = the lost tail) – good agreement  mean signal size Melectrons JT0623/ch V Pedestal σ = Melectrons

Same plot except on linear scale mean of all (as above) mean for >0.13 mean for >0.25 threshold (e.g. of discriminator if used) can make a 10% difference JT0623/ch V

Repeated all the above on another, independent data run 2.2Mevents, same HVB voltage. Result: Mean charge 1.04 Melectrons. Probably this is representative of +/-5% or so statistical error in the method. Some of this might be due to sensitivity to “arbitrary judgement” tuning fit limits. Next, we look at the nominal 5x10 5 gain voltage for this channel. From database, the gain fit equation is G=exp( *V-15.59) and so we need to set to 3046 V. Note that is a ~180 V extrapolation from the measured datapoints (which span 200 V). I don’t know what accuracy is expected… Mistake was made – that was ch3 nominal 5x10 5 gain voltage. Oops. My results from 3046 V are on following three pages. I don’t show all the initial analysis details just the end results, but method of analysis was similar. Scope is now set to 2 mV/div.

JT0623/ch V ignore the wiggles – a little crosstalk from LED drive

Charge histogram method as before. Fit pedestal first, then fit whole curve (from 0.08 to 1.22 Melectrons) to a phenomenological form (red curve) for signal ignoring electronics noise + the fixed pedestal fit. Signal in fit g(x)=b*x**p*exp(-x**q/c) b= / p= / q= / c= /  events in signal ( to 1.27 Melectrons) [We expected (cut) (pedestal fit) = events in signal. Good.]  mean signal size Melectrons JT0623/ch V Pedestal σ = Melectrons

Same plot except on linear scale JT0623/ch V

JT0623/ch V Pedestal σ = Melectrons Charge histogram method as before. Fit pedestal first, then fit whole curve (from 0.10 to 3.00 Melectrons) to a phenomenological form (red curve) for signal ignoring electronics noise + the fixed pedestal fit. Signal in fit g(x)=b*x**p*exp(-x**q/c) b = / p = / q = / c = /  events in signal ( 4.2% ) [We expected −19542(cut) − (pedestal fit) = events in signal. Good.]  mean signal size Melectrons

Same plot except on linear scale JT0623/ch V

Summary / comparison with Nagoya PMT database test results (Nagoya channel number = Hamamatsu channel number − 1) NagoyaIUratio Nagoya/IU 3220 V1.61 Me0.972 Me V0.831 Me (projected)0.353 Me V0.500 Me (projected)tbd 3220 V1.15 Me0.758 Me V0.500 Me (projected) ch3 / 3220 V This seems to indicate a discrepancy in measured points, by about a factor 1.5 It’s necessary to try to confirm calibration of IU method by an independent method, see following slides – results seem confirmed It seems there is a further discrepancy in projecting from measured points down to 0.5 Me gain level. In my opinion the gain fit function G=G 0 e αV does not have enough freedom to match the real data.

We may suspect some large >>5% error in the calibration here if: The load resistance, or scope voltage or time scale is out of calibration? (Not likely!) Summing the scope ADC samples doesn’t give a good estimate for charge integral? (i.e. Nyquist vs. Riemann) There is charge lost elsewhere? (Stray capacitances remove something from pulse and only comes back slowly? Not likely but…) Integration gate not correct? (But clearly it’s ok in scope photo!) Fit is not good and so mean of fit doesn’t estimate mean of signal data? (But it looks reasonable I think we all agree…) Bug in scope, or in analysis? To check this, I set up the LED pulser to a much higher rate (500 kHz rather than 500 Hz used above). Then directly measured the anode current on a picoammeter, and used the scope method to estimate only the fraction of signal events but not the mean amplitude. To make a better comparison, I do not cut the multi-photon events from the data. The LED amplitude and PMT gain may be shifting between 500 Hz and 500 kHz. Also the LED is not in precisely same location as before (I had to remove bleeder resistor from the setup, disturbing it). Therefore what we want to compare is the gain determined from picoammeter current and scope-method signal fraction, to the gain determined by scope method on the same 500 kHz data set. Results on following slides…

JT0623/ch V 500kHz 2-photon not cut Pedestal σ = Melectrons Charge histogram method as before. Fit pedestal first, then fit whole curve (from to 3.00 Melectrons) to a phenomenological form (red curve) for signal ignoring electronics noise + the fixed pedestal fit. Signal in fit g(x)=b*x**p*exp(-x**q/c) b = / p = / q = / c = /  events in signal ( 6.98% ) [We expected −22972(cut) − (pedestal fit) = events in signal. Moderate agreement, (20%), maybe due to distorted pedestal from baseline wander at the high rate.]  mean signal size Melectrons Current method (using Keithley #2485): LED on: −4.793 nA LED off: nA (just background/offset of the meter) Calculated mean signal: nA/(500 kHz * 6.98%) = Melectrons This is pretty good agreement (0.862/0.807) with the integrate/fit method, I think. Some extra current is to be expected from afterpulsing, which is outside the integration gate.

Same plot except on linear scale JT0623/ch V 500kHz 2-photon not cut

Move on to JT0947 Nagoya PMT database test results for JT0623 at 3010V: I looked at channel 2 and channel 3, according to Hamamatsu numbering Channel 2 Channel 3 This is from the newer procedure, where measured data comes closer to 5e5 gain, no large extrapolation is involved.

JT0947/ch V Pedestal σ = Melectrons Charge histogram method as before. Fit pedestal first, then fit whole curve (from to 0.70 Melectrons) to a phenomenological form (red curve) for signal ignoring electronics noise + the fixed pedestal fit. Signal in fit g(x)=b*x**p*exp(-x**q/c) b = / p = / q = / c = /  events in signal ( 6.3% ) [We expected −12612(cut) − (pedestal fit) = events in signal. Good.]  mean signal size Melectrons

Same plot except on linear scale JT0947/ch V

JT0947/ch V Pedestal σ = Melectrons Charge histogram method as before. Fit pedestal first, then fit whole curve (from 0.11 to 2.36 Melectrons) to a phenomenological form (red curve) for signal ignoring electronics noise + the fixed pedestal fit. Signal in fit g(x)=b*x**p*exp(-x**q/c) b = / p = / q = / c = /  events in signal ( 6.3% ) [We expected −22086(cut) − (pedestal fit) = events in signal. Good.]  mean signal size Melectrons

Same plot except on linear scale JT0947/ch V

Summary / comparison with Nagoya PMT database test results (Nagoya channel number = Hamamatsu channel number − 1) NagoyaIUratio Nagoya/IU JT V 1.61 Me0.972 Me1.67 JT V Me (projected)0.353 Me2.35 JT V 1.15 Me0.758 Me1.52 JT0623 ch3 / 3220 V JT V 0.63 Me0.197 Me3.20 JT V 1.72 Me0.664 Me2.59