MSU, PhilippinesPhilippines, Carleton Univ.of Ottawa,Univ. de Montréal, CanadaCanada, MPI, GermanyGermany, DAPNIA-CEA, Saclay, IN2P3-LAL and IPN, Orsay, France France
Dan Burke 20/12/05
Outline
Resolution results for ArIso and CO2
Bias results Residual vs. X PRF Drift Velocity
Resolution
σ0 = 104 +/- 3 μm Neff = 41 +/- 12 μm
row 7
Resolution – multiple rows together
Drift Distance [mm]
Res
olut
ion
[m
m]
Resolution
σ0 = 87 +/- 3 μm Neff = 30 +/- 5 μm
row 7
Resolution – multiple rows together
Drift Distance [mm]
Res
olut
ion
[m
m]
Resolution
σ0 = 108 +/- 5 μm Neff = 34 +/- 10 μm
row 7Drift Distance [mm]
Res
olut
ion
[m
m]
Resolution – multiple rows together
Drift Distance [mm]
Res
olut
ion
[m
m]
Bias
bias not corrected for
Residual vs. X-track (1T)
no large edge effects
Pad Response Function (1T)
Distance (mm)
Am
plit
ude
Not yet fitted for, some difficulties with paw fits
Pad Response Function (1T)
Distance (mm)
Am
plit
ude
Not yet fitted for, some difficulties with paw fits
Drift Velocity
Gas Vdrift(cm/s) Magboltz(cm/s)
ArIso 80 V/cm 2.95 ± 0.08 2.95 ± 0.01
ArIso 220 V/cm 4.19 ± 0.12 4.17 ± 0.01
TDR(super preliminary)
3.4 ± 0.3 3.58 ± 0.01
CO2 Too slow for electronics to measure
Average amplitude vs. Row #A
mpl
itud
e
6-9% variation in amplitude for inner rows
Conclusion
Resolution results consistent for ArIso and CO2 More bias studies PRF needs to be fitted properly, more time with PAW Drift velocity calculations accurate and agree with