1. AlCap Analysis Discussion Analysis Steps  Protons: BG, response, unfolding Question: perform alternative fast signal analysis  Muons: BG, efficiency Consistency Tests 1 Peter Kammel https://muon.npl.washington.edu/twiki/bin/view/MuE/AlCap  in target response function emission probability Draw from Dr. Tran’s thesis and presentation

2. Clean Protons N p (E) = N p obs (E) – B p (E) Background  Target Electrons Neutrons just work  Wall Protons slow time components? MT target?  Detector Scattered Muons, fast signals rejection?, improved geometry?  Other ? Direct check  Consistency section 2

3. Efficiency and Response Matrix left/right effects, MC, improve left/right effects consistency active target, X rays range curve left/right effects, MC Turtle very indirect, quantify, measure data losses, deadtime etc losses for small signals estimated by MC Scint veto, improved detector ? check fast signals 3 Target and detector  relative position Beam  longitudinal stopping distribution  transverse distribution Electronics and cuts  Data quality issues  Noise, SiF issues, L Threshold  PID cuts, see earlier?  high energy escapes  Pile up

4. Unfolding 4  check on threshold effects  inconsistencies  response matrix wasn’t there inconsistency between range with MC and active target?  different unfolding methods

5. Muons Stopped in Target Background  Wall  Other ? Improvements  Ge time resolution, S/N ?  yield/  stable against t cuts E muSC cuts  Investigate Pile-up 5

6. X-ray Efficiency how well Eu calibrated, bare and in-situ calibration Monte Carlo, active Si16 strange Ge effects, deadtime, reset explore, also muSC E cuts use fast signal good so far, all data 6 Target and detector  relative position Beam  transverse distribution Electronics and cuts  Data quality issues  Noise  Time cuts  Pile up Consistency  active SiR

7. Data Sets 7 Nam: 4000 p per 10 7 stopped  @ Al100

8. Consistency Data Sets Observables  Proton yield and spectrum  X-rays/muon vs. MC Consistent between all data sets?  Different data groups  Different target conditions  Si, where we “know” the answer Clearly, this is a high priority question ! 8

9. Active Target SiR: Center Compare analysis Ben and Nam  What are the main shortfalls? Poorly matched TFA Noise Other  Establish systematics table Sunday? Some considerations  standard muon cut + mu in SiR. compare mu SiR spectra to MC.  fast pulse analysis  slow pulse analysis, only accept delayed, well separated pulses, pile up correction for slow pulses, improved energy resolution  MC corrections for escaped p, E<7 MeV should be save 9

10. Applicable to thin Si or surface stop in thick Si Measure d  /dE Si, response matrix and confirm BG under control 1. standard muSC cut 2. + prompt SiL veto 3. +SiR muon coinc  with cut 1 E(SiL), with delayed time cut t(SiL), prompt peak ?  with cut 2: effect of scattered  on SiL time and energy spectrum  with cut 3 SiL ExT should be identical to above extract response matrix (correction for nuclear recoil) extract d  /dE Questionable whether data good enough, need working Si16 Active Target Analysis: Surface 10

11. Backup 11

12. 12 mSC SiL SiR mSC SiR SiL  p  p tt tptp

13. 13