Eduardo do Couto e Silva Feb 28, 2006

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Giovanni Petri University of Pisa/INFN Pisa/SLAC 29 August 2005 Study of TEM errors.
Advertisements

GLAST LAT Project Calibration and Analysis Meeting, 28 Nov 2005 E. Grove et al. 1 Proposed Flight Trigger Configuration: Engines and Scheduler Table J.
1 Background: Use of TKR Trigger One-Shots individual TKR strip channels “true” when analog shaped pulse is above threshold. strips in a plane are OR’d.
SVAC/ISOCInstrument Analysis Meeting, April 14, 2006 Anders W. Borgland 1 The LAT In Every Which Way You Want It! Anders W. Borgland Science Verification,
GLAST LAT ProjectIA Workshop 6 – Feb28,2006 Preliminary Studies on the dependence of Arrival Time distributions in the LAT using CAL Low Energy Trigger.
Checking the Acd hardware veto setting The hardware veto is generated in the front-end electronics Discriminator with coarse and fine settings Both are.
GLAST LAT Project Apr 1, 2005 E. do Couto e Silva 1/31 Overview of End to End Runs Eduardo do Couto e Silva April 1, 2005 ( not it is not a joke, we finally.
SVAC/ISOCInstrument Analysis Workshop, February 27, 2006 Anders W. Borgland 1 Overview Of LAT Data Taking Anders W. Borgland Science Verification, Analysis.
GLAST LAT Project Instrument Analysis Workshop 6 – 06/02/27 F. Piron & E. Nuss (LPTA) 1 Trending CAL performance and mapping crystals Gamma-ray Large Area.
GLAST LAT Project LAT System Engineering 1 Test Definition Planning Pat Hascall SLAC System Engineering Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope.
GLAST LAT Project11/18/04 I&T Two Tower IRR 1 GLAST Large Area Telescope: Integration and Test Two Tower Integration Readiness Review Particle Test Elliott.
GLAST LAT ProjectTrigger Scheduler, Engines, and Rates 6 Feb 2006 J. Eric Grove Naval Research Lab Washington DC Trigger Scheduler, Engines, and Rates.
A.Chekhtman1 GLAST LAT ProjectCalibration and Analysis group meeting, April, 3, 2006 CAL on-orbit calibration with protons. Alexandre Chekhtman NRL/GMU.
GLAST LAT Project Instrument Analysis Workshop 5 – 05/08/29 F. Piron & E. Nuss (IN2P3/LPTA – Montpellier) 1 Comprehensive review of CAL calibrations Gamma-ray.
GLAST LAT Project Instrument Analysis Workshop June 7, 2004 E. do Couto e Silva 1/19 Introduction to the Workshop Series Eduardo do Couto e Silva Instrument.
A.Chekhtman1 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, June, 24, 2005 CAL retriggering study with SLAC data. Alexandre Chekhtman NRL/GMU Gamma-ray.
GLAST LAT Project July 19, 2005 E. do Couto e Silva 1/17 Science Verification Analysis and Calibration GLAST Large Area Telescope Eduardo do Couto e Silva.
GLAST LAT Project May 25, 2006: Pre-Environmental Test Review Presentation 6 of 12 LAT Test Results 1 GLAST Large Area Telescope Pre-Environmental Test.
GLAST LAT ProjectDOE/NASA CD3-Critical Design Review, May 12, 2003 S. Ritz Document: LAT-PR Section 03 Science Requirements and Instrument Design.
Y. Karadzhov MICE Video Conference Thu April 9 Slide 1 Absolute Time Calibration Method General description of the TOF DAQ setup For the TOF Data Acquisition.
SVAC Instrument Analysis Meeting Aug 5, 2005 E. do Couto e Silva and Anders W. Borgland 1/7 SVAC 8 tower testing+ACD Anders and Eduardo.
GLAST LAT ProjectGLAST Flight Software IDT, October 16, 2001 JJRussell1 October 16, 2001 What’s Covered Activity –Monitoring FSW defines this as activity.
GLAST LAT Project Software vrvs meeting X. Chen 1 GLAST LAT Project Software vrvs meeting X. Chen 1 Analyses of Muon Calibration Data Xin Chen.
GLAST LAT ProjectIA Workshop 6 – Feb28,2006 E. do Couto e Silva 1 Final Data Taking with SLAC (Data for Instrument Analysis Workshop 7) Eduardo do.
GLAST LAT Project11/18/04 I&T Two Tower IRR 1 GLAST Large Area Telescope: Integration and Test Two Tower Integration Readiness Review Particle Test Gary.
SVACInstrument Analysis Meeting, September 23, 2005 Anders W. Borgland 1 GEM Discarded Events Anders W. Borgland Science Verification, Analysis and Calibrations.
GLAST LAT Project IA Workshop 4 July 15, 2005 E. do Couto e Silva 1/7 Overview of Data Taking Anders W. Borgland Science Verification, Analysis and Calibrations.
GLAST LAT ProjectIA Workshop 6 – Feb27,2006 E. do Couto e Silva 1 Introduction to Instrument Workshop 6 Eduardo do Couto e Silva Feb 27, 2006.
GLAST LAT ProjectTest Planning Meeting Aug 2, 2004 E. do Couto e Silva 1/6 SVAC EM2 Goals Develop distributions for E2E tests that involve comparison of.
GLAST LAT Project SE Test Planning meeting October 4, 2004 E. do Couto e Silva 1/13 SVAC Data Taking during LAT SLAC Oct 4, 2004 Eduardo.
Alex Moiseev NASA/GSFC 12/16/2005 Some ACD Calibration issues I.ACD mip peak monitoring 1. ACD mip peak monitoring requires the measurements to be done.
1 ACD studies: 1. Light Yield Determination for top ACD Tiles 2. Looking for holes (screws) in the ACD data Instrument Analysis Workshop VI Luis C. Reyes.
SVACInstrument Analysis Workshop IV Quatorze Juillet, 2005 Anders W. Borgland 1 Overview of Data Taking Anders W. Borgland Science Verification, Analysis.
ACD calibrations Pedestals Measured from online script Measure PHA w/ HV off, no charge injection Use cyclic triggers ~ ADC counts, very narrow.
GLAST LAT Project Instrument Analysis Workshop #4, 14 July 2005 David Smith CAL calib at SLAC SVAC1 Stability of the CAL Calibrations Online script “suites”
Sep/26/05Trigger test plan Trigger ACD/LAT Test Plan Eric Grove, Martin Kocian, Su Dong.
GLAST LAT Project Test Planning Meeting Dec 5, 2005 E. do Couto e Silva 1/5 Final Proposal for Phase 1 and 2 SVAC, E2E Tests (hereafter LAT 70X, 80X) Eduardo,
GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis Workshop, June 2004 J. Eric Grove Naval Research Lab Washington DC Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope CAL Detector.
Pass 6: GR V13R9 Muons, All Gammas, & Backgrounds Muons, All Gammas, & Backgrounds Data Sets: Muons: allMuon-GR-v13r9 (14- Jan-2008) AG: allGamma-GR-v13r9.
GLAST LAT ProjectLAT Muons at NRL 28 Feb 2006 J. Eric Grove Naval Research Lab Washington DC LAT Muon Data Taking During Environmental Test at NRL J. Eric.
GLAST LAT Project IA Workshop 4 July 14, 2005 E. do Couto e Silva 1/7 Introduction to the Instrument Analysis Workshop 4 Eduardo do Couto e Silva July.
GLAST LAT ProjectI&T Test Planning Telecon, 8 Nov 2004 CAL Test and Calibration DefinitionJ. Eric Grove GLAST LAT GLAST LAT Calorimeter Subsystem Gamma-ray.
Feb. 3, 2007IFC meeting1 Beam test report Ph. Bruel on behalf of the beam test working group Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope.
MuTrg/Mutr Optimization Yoshi-mitsu Imazu. ● Mutr Lv1 timing scan Adjustment of Lv1 timing Online/Offline shape cut values ● Mutrg threshold scan → Better.
GLAST LAT ProjectNovember 18, 2004 I&T Two Tower IRR 1 GLAST Large Area Telescope: Integration and Test Two Tower Integration Readiness Review SVAC Elliott.
GLAST LAT Project SE Test Planning Dec 7, 2004 E. do Couto e Silva 1/27 Trigger and SVAC Tests During LAT integration Su Dong, Eduardo do Couto e Silva.
Acd Veto Latching The Acd front end electronics generate a veto primitive when a discriminator goes above threshold. But. The signal is split: One path.
Fabio, Francesco, Francesco and Nicola INFN and University Bari
Background Rejection Prep Work
FVTX High Multiplicity Trigger for Run15
GLAST LAT tracker signal simulation and trigger timing study
SANE Cherenkov - Bigcal Efficiency Update
Overview of Instrument Analysis Effort
LAT Test Results GLAST Large Area Telescope LAT Pre-Shipment Review
BESIII EMC electronics
Calorimeter calibrations with Flight Software.
Overview Goal Study GEM variables in SVAC ntuple
TKR to CAL for 16 Towers The usual TKR extrapolation to CAL study, for the 16 tower data. Check calibrations, look for problems, etc. Today -- “work in.
Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope
Commissioning of the ALICE-PHOS trigger
Testing some CAL specs Level 3 CAL requirement 5.5.5:
Mini Tower Preliminary Results
GLAST LAT System Engineering
CR Photon Working Group
Studies of the Time over Threshold
Shaped Digital Readout Noise in CAL
SVAC Configuration Verification
CAL crosstalk issues and their implications
GLAST Large Area Telescope: I&T Test Readiness Review
Overview of Beam Test Benoit, Ronaldo and Eduardo Nov 8 , 2005 thanks to Steve and Bill for helping to consolidate all the information.
Presentation transcript:

Eduardo do Couto e Silva Feb 28, 2006 Studying TKR Trigger Arrival Time from with CAL Triggers in Flight Configuration Eduardo do Couto e Silva Feb 28, 2006

Motivation So far the CAL low (CAL_LE_) and high (CAL_HE) energy triggers have been only tested with charge injection because cosmic ray distribution peaks at low energies Can we use the CAL_LE and CAL_HE triggers in FLIGHT configuration to verify that the LAT is aligned in time? need a lot of statistics since we rely on the tail of the cosmic ray distribution we combined all LAT B/2 runs to obtain 10,320,000 events CAL_LE > 100 MeV CAL_HE > 1000 MeV Can we create samples of muon and photon candidates? Yes, but we will define “loose” cuts to keep statistics to a reasonable level

Beware!!!! The next slides are a summary of my discussions with Eric Sisskind I also stole some text from Martin’s presentations IA and/or trigger meetings Unfortunately I had no time to have them blessed by Mike Huffer (who designed the system!) if there are mistakes, they reflect my ignorance about how the system works rather than a flaw in the design ! I could not find a timing diagram elsewhere…

How do we time in? Adjust Trigger Acknowledge delay for optimal data acquisition goal is to sample at the peak Slide form Martin (IA3) It is not only about adjustable delays but there are also latencies in the system Line up trigger primitives at GEM input CAL is the slowest ACD is the fastest use trigger request delay lines to adjust arrival at TEM

Trigger information (from Martin) If trigger window is too large trigger efficiency high data latching efficiency can be reduced if window is 0 then max delay is 11 ticks after that latching occurs before trigger ! TKR trigger can be high settable from 2 to 31 ticks or during duration of signal LAT Timing was done at threshold above noise CAL HI is difficult to time in with muons used charge injection

LAT Alignment: Time Delays GASU A C B GTFE GTRC TEM GEM E D C GCFE GCRC GAFE GARC AEM

B2 Run: Timing Diagram? TREQ delay TACK delay + RC/FE delays All Signals Aligned TREQ delay + RC/FE delays TACK delay Time since ACD Trigger primitive is issued 76 x 50 ns (3800 ns) CAL Trigger primitive to GCCC (2) + TREQ Delay (0) + CAL_LE/CAL_HE to GEM (6) 8x 50 ns = 400 ns ACD Trigger primitive (veto) to scheduler (4) + veto delay (16) 20 x 50 ns = 1000 ns TKR Trigger primitive to GTCC (2) + TREQ Delay (5) + 3-in-a-row to the GEM (4) 11x 50 ns = 550 ns GARC latency (2) + register TAM at AEM, register zero suppression, form TACK(7) + hold S&H delay in GARC(24) + overhead (6) 39 x 50 ns = 1950 ns Coincidence Window 12 x 50 ns 600 ns CW+TAM+TACK formation (12 + 3 + 2 = 17 17 x 50 ns = 650 ns ) Time since TKR Trigger primitive is issued 38 x 50 ns (1900 ns) TACK latency (5) + TACK delay(0) + GTFE/GTRC latency(5) 10 x 50 ns = 500 ns Time since CAL Trigger primitive is issued 84 x 50 ns (4200 ns) TACK latency (9) from the exit of the GEM + TACK delay(44) + GCFE/GCRC latency (7) 59 x 50 ns = 2950 ns Window latency (1) for signals to be integrated into the GEM before opening the trigger window 1 x 50 ns (50 ns) Trigger Accept Message Look up engine number (1) + propagate window signal and engine number from scheduler to TAM chip (1) + check prescaler, engine inhibit, and BUSY to decide to issue a trigger (1) 3 x 50 ns = 150 ns Trigger Acknowledge latency from the TAM chip to the TEM or the AEM ~ 1 x 50 ns (50 ns)

Summary of Timing We are latching the data at about 3800 ns since ACD trigger primitive was issued signal peaks at 4000 ns 4250 ns since CAL trigger primitive was issued signal peaks at >4000 ns? 1900 ns since TKR trigger primitive was issued signal peaks at 1900-2000 ns? Signal height variations imply in trigger jitter (see Martin’s talk) Trigger jitter is not large (ACD, CAL and TKR) from 60 to 125 ns? note that for “diode events” it can be as large as 500 ns ! see next page

Trigger Jitter (from M. Kocian) ACD Jitter s = 1.2 x 50 ns = 60 ns “box” ~ 10 x 50 ns = 500 ns CAL_LE Jitter s = 2.5 x 50 ns = 125 ns “box” ~ 20 x 50 ns = 1000 ns low values are Diode depositions arrive about 5 to 8 x 50 ns earlier (250 to 400 ns) see discussion in the next slide TKR Jitter

Cuts are less tight than The Cuts… Muon candidates select every tower, and only one tower at the time with CAL_LE and TKR trigger fired GemTkrVector and GemCalLeVector set to 1 CAL_LE and TKR trigger and ROI bit set GemConditionsWord = 7 One track events TkrNumTracks =1 Photon candidates GemTkrVector[TOWER] = 1 and GemCalLeVector[TOWER] = 1 CAL_LE and TKR trigger GemConditionsWord = 6 At least 1 track TkrNumTracks > 0 2 empty TKR planes above first TKR hit plane (use Si as a veto) TKR1SSDVeto>2 Final Results Study arrival time of TKR for events with E>100 MeV and E<100 MeV require CAL_LE to open the trigger window but TKR NOT efficiency ~ 0.004% to 0.09% for CAL_LE efficiency ~ 0.001% for CAL_HE depends on the cuts applied replaces MC GltTower see Jane’s talk (IA6) Cuts are less tight than Bill’s (IA3) and Elisabetta’s (IA5)

Number of Triggered Towers Select one Tower only CAL_LE and TKR trigger fired GemTkrVector[twr]=1 GemCalLeVector[twr] = 1

Our Main Results Our Results blue: sum of data points pink: E< 100 MeV black: E>=100MeV When one hits the diodes we may sample the energy about 8 x 50 ns = 400 ns before the peak ( no big deal !) Our Results Events with low energy in the crystals (but high Energy in the diodes E> 100 MeV) TKR arrives on average 5 x 50 ns = 250 ns after CAL_LE opens the window Events with High energy in the crystals (E> 100 MeV) TKR arrives on average 3 x 50 ns = 150 ns after CAL_LE opens the window It takes about 15 x 50 ns = 750 ns for the TKR to begin to lose efficiency (i.e. we are fine!)

Maximum Energy in a Crystal E>=100 MeV E<100 MeV Cut-off because we used calibration constants for B30 (muon gain) in B2 runs (flight gain) – thanks Sasha! Muon candidates Cuts GemTkrVector[twr] =1 and GemCalLeVector[twr] = 1 GemConditionsWord = 7 TkrNumTracks =1

CAL Edges (where diodes are!) Tkr1X0 vs Tkr1Y0 CAL Edges (where diodes are!) Muon candidates Cuts GemTkrVector[twr] =1 and GemCalLeVector[twr] = 1 GemConditionsWord = 7 TkrNumTracks =1

Length of the Track muon photon

Tkr1SSDVeto muon photon

TKR Arrival Time with CAL LE Opens Window muon mean ~ 285 ns mean ~ 180 ns photon mean ~ 135 ns mean ~ 250 ns

Muons and Photons E>=100 MeV E<100 MeV muon E<100 MeV photon

CAL HI Triggers with Muons ! CAL_HE triggers 0.001% efficiency expect a factor of 10 higher statistics for the final LAT runs! Not enough statistics to say anything distribution does fall off ! this is good!

Conclusion We were able to study time properties of the CAL Low Energy Trigger with ground data from a sample of about 10M LAT L1 triggers (~6 hours) There are no obvious problems with the TKR arrival time of the events distribution is well contained within the Trigger window for muons and photon candidates There is a class of events that trigger on CAL diodes but deposit little energy in the CAL which exhibits different timing properties all consistent with expectations LAT seems to be timed in properly We should have more statistics for the final runs also remember we will orient the LAT horizontally!

correlation for E>=100 MeV Muon Candidates correlation for E>=100 MeV

Number of ACD Digis: muons E>=100 MeV E<100 MeV