SiPM for MEG2

8
SiPM for MEG2 On behalf of the italianTC group Fukuoka 23 Oct 2013

description

SiPM for MEG2. On behalf of the italianTC group Fukuoka 23 Oct 2013. Current TC time resolution Intrinsic TC resolution at BTF is ~40 ps In MEG degradation due to B and to large dynamic range 40 ps → 50 ps expected Additional degradation due - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of SiPM for MEG2

Page 1: SiPM for MEG2

SiPM for MEG2

On behalf of the italianTC group Fukuoka 23 Oct 2013

Page 2: SiPM for MEG2

Current TC time resolution

Intrinsic TC resolution at BTF is ~40 psIn MEG degradation due to B and to large dynamic range 40 ps → 50 ps expectedAdditional degradation due to DRS (DrS(t) ~30-50ps) → 60 ps (measured with triple, 65 ps is anoverestimation)

Page 3: SiPM for MEG2

Current te resolution

Dominant contribution from t

(TC+DRS) = (BTF)(1+ (MEG))+ (DRS) =

40x(1 + 0.25) + 40 = 60 ps

(BTF) intrinsec (from BTF)

(MEG) relative degradation due to B (low G), large signal dynamic range(DRS) due to DRS

Page 4: SiPM for MEG2

Upgrade TC time resolutionResolution s(t

TC) = 30 (33) ps measured

MEG Additional error (B, extra dynamic range): 1.1

Reduced DRS error: 25 ps

Calibration: 30 ps(???)

Page 5: SiPM for MEG2

Upgrade te resolution

MEG MEG2(my) MEG2(proposal) Intrinsec 40 ps → 30 ps 35 ps MEG factor 0.25 0.1 DRS 40 ps 25 ps TC calib 40 ps 30 ps Le/c 75 ps 35 ps 11 ps--------------------------------------------------- t

e 107 ps 63 ps 37

ps t 67 ps → 64 ps

76 ps ---------------------------------------------------- t

e 122 ps 90 ps 84 ps

Page 6: SiPM for MEG2

te in alternative scenarios

• tTC

intrinsic = 20 ps -> te = 87 ps

• tTC

intrinsic = 30 ps -> te = 90 ps (Hamamatsu)

• tTC

intrinsic = 33 ps -> te = 91 ps (AdvanSId)

• tTC

intrinsic = 40 ps -> te = 93 ps

• s(calibration) = 30ps • The change are tiny.• Limit on->e scales linearly with resolution• But 1 more week/y per extra calibration or commissioning would waste a 3% gain

Page 7: SiPM for MEG2

Calibration and (te

Relative calibration between TC counter(and with XEC) can strongly influence (t

e) Stability of the SiPM is of importantIn particular the thermal coefficients dV/dT should be as small as possible

That is a relevant parameter for deviceswith comparable s(t

TC)

dV/dT = 50 mV/oC for (Hamamatsu) dV/dT = 25 mV/oC for (AdvanSid)

Page 8: SiPM for MEG2

Conclusion

Hamamatsu and AdvanSid are equivalent from the point of view of the effect on t

e time resolution

AdvanSid offers better performance from the point of view of stability that may allow precise calibration

AdvanSid is our preferred choice for MEG2