1. Correlation of HO signal with DT
Gobinda Majumder
T.I.F.R.
Reconstruction of muon tracks and extrapolation to HO
HO signals in different time slices
Signal and cross talks
Conclusion

2. Drift Chamber information
Do not have data base for all runs
Only databases from Run# 2377 (Bon) and Run#2255 (no field for MTCC-I)
Reconstruct DTRechit → DTRecSegment2D→DTRecsegment4D
3.8T field (Run # ): Use StandaloneMuon reconstruction code (modified for MTCC, but field map is for 4 Tesla) and then extrapolate to HO (only 30 cm away)
Extrapolation without any information of database
No field case (Run # ): Use low uniform magnetic field (200 Gauss) to reconstruct muon track.
MTCC-II : (4T) and (ZERO) field : Only Ring2 timing are useful (3.8T), but many variation of timings and connections.

3. Cosmic ray muon spectrum in MTCC-I
P (GeV)
θ (rad)
Muon trigger is only in sector 10 (Vertically downward)
Momentum has to scale down by a factor 3.8/4
Known problem : Ratio of μ+ and μ– are not 1.3
Use muon with P>4 GeV and |θ–π/2|<0.5, |φ+π/2|<0.5, ndof>30

4. Pixel configuration of Ring1&Ring2
No difference in Ring1 and Ring2
Look for signal in nearby six pixel (if there and also readout)

5. Time profile of Sector10, examples
Phase-I YB2
Phase-I YB1
Phase-II YB1 (3.8T)
Phase-II YB2 (3.8T)
Variation of timing within few time period

6. HO signals and cross talk
Signals only in Sector-10, φ=270o
Use only time slice 2-5 for MTCC-I
MTCC-II : 3-6 for Ring-I and 4-7 for Ring-2
Pedestal is obtained from a single run, e.g., run# 3986 for data at 3.8T in phase-II
Signal to the extrapolated HO towers as well as nearest towers (pixel and physical position of tower)
To check random noise use same pixel in Ring-1(2), when extrapolated muon on Ring-2(1)
To have better accuracy of extrapolation, events are selected where muon hits inside 10cm of an edge of HO tile

7. Stability of pedestals
Pedestal of all HO pixels for run#
Variation of pedestal for different runs (two of them)
Run #
Run #
Pedestal values are stable over MTCC run period

8. Signal in geometrically nearby tower
η=–1 Φ=–1
η=–1 Φ=0
η=–1 Φ=+1
-10 (fC)
-10 (fC)
-10 (fC)
η=0 Φ=0
η=0 Φ=–1
η=0 Φ=+1
-10 (fC)
-10 (fC)
-10 (fC)
η=+1 Φ=0
η=+1 Φ=–1
η=+1 Φ=+1
-10 (fC)
-10 (fC)
-10 (fC)
There are some +ve signals in geometrycally nearby towers, due to extrapolation or pixel cross talk or both ?

9. Signal in geometrically nearby tower,but in different RM (ZERO field)
∆η=–1
∆η=0
∆η=+1
Projected φ=55
Signal in Φ=56 fC fC fC
Projected φ=56
Signal in Φ=55 fC fC fC
Projection is not perfect, Muon reco/Extrapolation ?

10. Signal in geometrically nearby tower,but in different RM (3.8T field)
∆η=+1
∆η=–1
∆η=0
Projected φ=55
Signal in Φ=56 fC fC fC
Projected φ=56
Signal in Φ=55 fC fC fC
Projection is not perfect, Muon reco/Extrapolation ?

11. Uncorrelated noise level (muon in YB1,signal in YB2)
B=0 YB=1
B=0 YB=2 fC fC
B=3.8TYB=2
B=3.8TYB=1 fC fC
In YB+1 case, we see some noise in presence of magnetic field

12. Signals in towers of nearest pixel, Ring1 without any field (H,15)
Up left
Up right
QADC (fC)
Left
Projected
Right
Little signal in nearby pixel
Bot Left
Bot right
All six

13. Signals in towers of nearest pixel, Ring1 with B=3.8T (H,15)
Up left
Up right
QADC (fC)
Left
Projected
Right
Not much cross-talk, but signal height gone down
Bot Left
Bot right
All six

14. Signals in towers of nearest pixel, Ring2 with 3.8T (H,15)
Up left
Up right
QADC (fC)
Left
Projected
Right
Little signal in up-right pixel
Bot Left
Bot right
All six

15. Phase I data : Sector 10 @ZERO field
Statistical error ~1-3%. Total cross talk is 5-10%.

16. Phase I data : Sector 10 @3.8T field
Cross talk increase to ~15% for ring 1

17. Phase II data : Sector 10 @ZERO field

18. Phase II data : Sector 10 @4.0T field
No visible change in signal and cross-talk

19. Comparison of means with and without B-field
There is no effect in ring-2, but ring-1 signal has gone down by a factor ~2, whereas cross talk is only about 10-25%

20. Comparison of HO signal and pedestal width in TB2006 & MTCC-I (no filed)fC fC
Signal
Signal fC fC
Signal distribution is fitted with a (Gaussian (for ped)+Gaussian convoluted Landau (signal) in TB2006, for MTCC signal is fitted with only Gaussian convoluted Landau function

21. HO signal and pedestal width in TB2006
peak/sigma
Sigma qw

22. HO signal and pedestal width in MTCC(zero field)
field is comparable to TB2006 signal. Though signals are not consistent (in TB06 muons cover more path in the scintillator)

23. Conclusion There is negligible cross-talk in Ring-2 pixel (~0.2T)
Ring-1 pixel shows increase in cross-talk of the level ~10% (0.3T)
Similarly uncorrelated noise is very low ~4×10–4
Irrespective of cross-talk, total signal has gone down with magnetic field.

24. Many test on time slice, half of RM were not connected etc.

25. HO signal and pedestal width in MTCC(3.8T field)

27. Angle between Bz/By vs z,
important to eliminate HPD xtalk

28. 2000, 2003 preditions vs 2006 Hall probe, By
Field value also changes !
Field less than
0.2T (2kG)
needed to have
no discharges in HO

29. Bfield measurements with moving Hall probes (vladimir epshteyn, slava)
0,4T is no good,
We want <0.2 T, need to displace box by ~70 cm
70cm
Hall probes installed during mtcc1/mtcc2 shutdown
data taken at 3.8T (Wednesday morning, oct )
And at 4.0T (Monday, oct )