1. T958! Fermilab Test beam experiment to study fast timing counters for FP420 MOU between UTA, Alberta, Louvain, Fermilab (Brandt spokesman) Data taking scheduled July 24-31… FP420 Collab meeting CERN Sep. 29, 2006

2. Happy Birthday Lawrence (13!)

3. Collaboration UTA coordinating, providing grad student for summer at Fermilab for DAQ/readout integration, also simulations, Fused Silica, connectors, detector holders, Burle interface, electronics modules for test beam, etc. Alberta providing air light guides, electronics expertise, cables, simulations Louvain providing Gastof prototypes, amplifiers, cables, connectors, electronics expertise Fermilab providing test beam and support (and Mike!)

4. Critical Issues (all converged) 1)ORC (electrical safety) Andrew gas safety (Mike). 2)Gas (Mike discovered Octafluorotetrahydrofuran! C4F80 replacement for banned C4F10 (can use latter, but $10k for a bottle!). Now need to get gas out of bottle… 3)Support stand (tech support from Fermilab) 4) Air light guides 5) UTA Quartic mounting box 5)Readout integration, tracking 6)Fermi Id’s, safety training 7)All parts (including PMT’s to Fermi)

5. T958 Personnel and Running Period Fermi Personnel for July setup and run Albrow Brandt Pedro (GRA) Luc (EE) Tomasz+Pierre (Post-doc+GRA) Lars+John (EE) But beam goes off unexpectedly July 21- Aug 11!!! Sporadic mostly parasitic running Aug 12- Sep 14 (primary user Sep 7-10, 14) Darn near kills Mike and me (heroic effort by Mike as only FNAL person): AGB at Fermi July 17-27, Aug 1-3, 13-16, 28-31, Sep. 1-3, 6-9, 13-14 Arranged additional help from Tomasz, Lars+Len, UTA students Spurlock, Pal, Roy, post-doc Duncan Brown

6. Burle 8x8 MCP-PMT ADC (LeCroy 2249A) Amplifier : Hamamatsu Ortec Phillips Constant Fraction Discriminator Ortec 934 (9307) TDC (Phillips 7186) T958 Electronics SMA NIM Trigger, CAMAC DAQ, in parallel tracking with MWPC SMA Lemo

7. T958 Electronics

8. T958 Setup G1 G2 Q1 Q2

9. GASTOF Prototype To be released from customs today! http://www.fynu.ucl.ac.be/themes/he/ggamma/Cherenkov/

10. Alberta Air Light Guide V2 with minibars V1 with minibars

11. 7.62 cm 2.54 cm 9.0 cm 3.7 cm 4.7 cm 1.53 cm 1.01 cm 2.54 cm 50º 2.57 cm 4.82 cm 6.4 cm *red line shows where beam should be 1.97 cm vertically below top of box *green line show where we started 3 *magenta line shows where CENTER of beam hits tube 1.97 cm Where is the beam?! top view

12. WARNING: Data analysis still pre- preliminary

13. 8/30:  t G1-G2 two peaks! 9/06:  t G1-G2 <70 psec/Gastof (2500V)

14. 8/31 CFD 934 Output: G2 GOOD! Zero Crossing CFD output

15. 8/31 G1 BAD! Fuzzy gross, Zero Crossing

16. 8/31 G1 with optimized CFD tuning

17. double peak separated by ~1.2 nsec characteristic of poorly tuned CFD 2300 V 2500 V G2- a Q2 channel CFD 934 -> 9307 kills second peak for a (previously) bad Q channel

18. Best Quartic channels at 2300 V have resolution of about 130 ps (  {156 2 -90 2 })

19. 2300 2500 HV matters: better gain, smaller MCP jitter

20. Questions Why G not better than it is? Why G so much better than Q? (G is intrinsically faster, but expected to be dominated by electronics) 90 vs 130 ps implies another 90 ps resolution term unique for Q (right now, I can only account for 40 ps)!

21. Timing Resolution Components Detector specific: G~2 ps, Q has other contributions: color dispersion (20 ps), position dependence (25 ps), number of pe’s (25 ps) Common: PMT (50 psec single pe at max gain;30 for 10 um) Amplifier/attenuator (actually different) CFD (not all same) TDC CABLES/CONNECTORS (not all same)

22. TDC Uncertainty? expect <25 ps, investigating 2 channels differ only by 1 ns in cable length

23. Tracking (hot of press) x (mm) y (mm) 6 mm 15 mm x (mm) y (mm) tracks projected to Q1 valid time in one Q1 bar 30 mm 25 mm beam “center” 10x15 mm

24. G2-Q2_53 G2-Q2_55 Q2_53-Q2_55 G2~90 Q2~130 Q2,Q2~110 ->common term of 60 ps removed Even Hotter!

25. Hottest!

26. Overflows Operating in common stop mode, if a start arrives with no stop in next 100 ns it gives overflow when next stop comes Overflows: occurred at an unacceptable level are bad cause no info on channel—don’t know wheter or not it had a valid time depend on trigger, tighter trigger worse-> more likely proton starts a channel, but doesn’t give stop hamper ability to measure efficiency *Need to improve this for next run

27. raw time;  t=10 nsec!! Some things not understood!

28. How to Proceed Learned a lot (still learning) but MANY questions have to be answered before we are convinced we have a viable detector Need better alignment, tracking, electronics, DAQ, analysis, management, etc. Starting to plan for next test beam (Jan 10?, later?), {some cosmics in mean time?}