1. Some feedbacks from DRS data analysis (very preliminary) F. Scuri - I.N.F.N Sezione di Pisa RD52 – Collaboration Meeting – Pavia, March 12, 2013 F. Scuri 12/03/20131 Sorry for the poor quality of the slides, last minute assembly ……

2. DRS 16 chs S3 = ADC12 C3 = N.C S9 = ADC0 C9 = N.C S13= ADC8 S14= ADC1 S15= ADC2 S16= ADC4 S17 = ADC9 C13=ADC10 C14=ADC5 C15 = ADC6 C16=ADC7 C17 =ADC14 S21= ADC4 C21= ADC11 S27= ADC13 C27 = N.C. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 T19 T20 T21 T22 T23 T24 T25 T26 T27 T28 T29 T30 T31 T32 T33 T34 T35 T36 DRS readout geometry Trigger = ADC15 F. Scuri 12/03/20132 USB Personal laptop + DRS = “pocket DAQ” Physics and ped. Trigger from the RD52 DAQ

3. 180 Gev pions on Tower 15; run 9350, RD-52 run started only to have trigger signal in time with the analog detector signal Calibration constants from SeeWock No cuts possbile ! Event writing rate on the host laptop not matching the timing of the RD52 DAQ. S15 / C15 analog signal attenuated with a passive attenuator to avoid ADC saturation (6dB (:2) or 12dB (:4), I didn’t mark on the logbook !) 30 seconds / event (only Scintillation) is the processing time in my laptop … == > Only a small fraction of the available statistics processed Data taking summary F. Scuri 12/03/20133

4. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 (attenuated) S19 S20 S21 S22 S23 S25 S26 S27 S28 S29 Integrated Charge - Scintillation F. Scuri 12/03/20134 No tail in this distribution …. … uhmm…

5. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 (attenuated) S19 S20 S21 S22 S23 S25 S26 S27 S28 S29 Saturation in the analog input ! Peak amplitude - Scintillation F. Scuri 12/03/20135

6. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 (attenuated) S19 S20 S21 S22 S23 S25 S26 S27 S28 S29 Pulse time profiles Different average time profile Two component distribution F. Scuri 12/03/20136

7. Event 2: regular shape Event 3: “saturated signal” shape T15 and T16 S-time profiles F. Scuri 12/03/20137

8. 40 ns signal charge integration window 20 ns tail charge integration window F. Scuri 12/03/20138 Time window regions

9. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S19 S20 S21 S22 S23 S25 S26 S27 S28 S29 Charge integral ratio : tail window / signal window F. Scuri 12/03/20139 Non-Gaussian !

10. Ave: 0.162 RMS: 0.035 Ave: 0.138 RMS: 0.022 Ave : 0.157 RMS: 0.040 Ave: 0.138 RMS: 0.023 Ave : 0.126 RMS: 0.026 Ave : 0.132 RMS: 0.022 Ave : 0.157 RMS: 0.031 Ave : 0.135 RMS: 0.025 Ave : 0.148 RMS: 0.034 Almost constant average ratios and RMS in each ring ! Integrated charge ratio: distribution statistics F. Scuri 12/03/201310

11. Reconstructed position with the method of the center of mass of the energy deposition (S15 excluded) Reconstructed beam spot not centered: - Bad detector positioning or - Non perfect calibration or - Just the tilt effect ? F. Scuri 12/03/201311 mm

12. F. Scuri 12/03/201312 Next to do Look at the Cherenkov channels Check that there is no difference among channels in the ratio of charge integration regions Study the correlation of the ratio in scintillation vs C/S Very difficult, however, with the problems in the central tower T15 Think about some method to clean-up the sample by using timing information available with DRS