[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Straw Problems?
Hi Fernando,
It is a possibility. That's why it would be very useful to have a new
prototype. I believe that I once did a Garfield simulation with a wire
that had an offset from the center in order to see what would happen with
the drift time (we also observe too long drift times). I can look more
into this.
Cheers,
Yves
/--------------------------------
/ Yves Van Haarlem
_--~~--_ /
/~/_| |_\~\ / Carnegie Mellon University
|____________| / Department of Physics
|[][][][][][]|:= / Wean Hall room 8404
__| __ |__ \ Pittsburgh, PA 15213
| ||. | == | | \ USA
(| ||__| == | |) \
| |[] [] == | | \ Tel.: +1 412 268-6949
| |____________| | \ +1 412 641-9252
/__\ /__\ \ Fax.: +1 412 681-0648
~~ ~~ \-----------------------------------
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Fernando J. Barbosa wrote:
> Hi Yves,
>
> Just one more point. I mentioned the wire sag in the middle (half length) of
> the straw but the same would apply for a sagging straw. Any offset of the
> wire from the center of the straw would cause the same problem.
>
> If you have a chance, I suggest you simulate this in Garfield for
> verification. It would be really nice to show these effects and that would
> certainly guide the design, procurement and testing of the straws.
>
> Regards,
> Fernando
>
>
>
>
> Fernando J. Barbosa wrote:
>> Hi Yves,
>>
>> I reviewed all the recent plots you have posted and I believe there a few
>> issues with the straws.
>>
>> The X-rays from Fe55 are fully converted within the straw Ar, a point
>> source, and that's one of the reasons it is so widely used in tests of gas
>> detectors. Therefore, I strongly believe we should be able to see the
>> escape peak of Ar. So, I believe the we are observing that peak. For
>> instance, your first plot under cross talk shows the main peak at 5.9 keV
>> around channel 2700 and the 3.2 keV (escape peak of Ar) at about channel
>> 1900. If we take the ratio of these peak amplitudes (580 and 300, by eye)
>> and subtract the "offset" (250 on the valley between the two peaks), we get
>> a factor of about 7. This is about right - 10% to 20% - from what I can
>> recall.
>>
>> Now to the amplitude distribution plots. If I look at the three plots under
>> "Different positions (straw supported, 1800V)", I observe that the escape
>> peak is visible at the positions labeled begin and end but it is almost
>> indistinguishable in the middle position. I also see that the main peak is
>> on channel 2500 for begin and end but it is shifted up to channel 2800 in
>> the middle. This is a symptom of a non-uniform electric field inside the
>> straw. In the middle, the wire sags and there is a region of higher field
>> (wire closer to straw). For point ionizations in this region, I would
>> expect higher amplitude signals. Therefore, if the Fe55 illuminates the
>> whole straw diameter, there will be varying amplitude distributions for
>> point ionizations for the same radial positions but where the electric
>> fields are different. This intrinsically implies that the gas gain changes
>> even for the same position Z along the straw. A similar effect will be
>> observed for straws that are out-of-round or for mechanical problems (crimp
>> pins to perfectly centered, etc.)
>>
>> I suggest you look at a number of straws and get plots at various
>> positions, as you did before, say 1 cm from the end close to the preamp,
>> middle and 1 cm from the other end of the straw. Maybe this should be a
>> gallery of straw responses.
>>
>> I will look more carefully for references in the next few days. However, if
>> this is the case, we will need to be very careful about checking the straws
>> and assembly details - a QC/QA plan will definitely be needed.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Fernando
>