[Sbs_gems] [EXTERNAL] UV Latency Analysis Results

Sun Jan 16 01:45:48 EST 2022

So, at the current moment, for the initial runs at 1 uA, I only had access
to 10k replays so I based the following off of those.

The differences between the two runs are that Run 13297 had previous
voltage values and Run 13298 had an increase of 25V on UV Layer 1 and
Module 1 of the XY Layer.

>From the attached plots showing the peak time samples, it appears that the
latency was okay and therefore I didn't adjust it.

[image: image.png] [image: 13297 Layer 3 Latency.png]
[image: 13299 Layer 1 Latency.png] [image: 13299 Layer 3 - Latency.png]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, between the two HV settings there isn't a definite enough difference
(increase) in efficiencies between the previous voltage settings and from
increasing them by 25V. Please see the attached plots for this.

[image: 13297 Layer 1 Efficiency.png] [image: 13297 XY GEM1 Efficiency.png]
[image: 13299 Layer 1 Efficiency.png] [image: 13299 XY GEM1 Efficiency.png]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With that being said, I left the voltages for UV Layer 1 and Module 1 of
the XY layer set with an increase of 25V.

While I was writing this one of the 50k replays finally came in and for
reference the efficiency for UV Layer 1 with the 25V increase was: 84.71 ±
0.64. The full set of 50k replays is not yet finished. I will update if
those change anything.

Best regards,

John Boyd

On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 11:45 AM Gnanvo, Kondo (kg6cq) <kg6cq at virginia.edu>
wrote:

> Hi again Sean,
>
> I also thing that like Andrew suggested, ultimately, changing the latency
> for these two layers 1 & 3 to center the APV25 peak for the hits in the
> central area of the detector will address the concern (tracking efficiency)
>
> Best regards
>
> Kondo
>
>
>
> *From:* Sbs_gems <sbs_gems-bounces at jlab.org> *On Behalf Of *Sean Jeffas
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 15, 2022 11:02 AM
> *To:* Sbs_gems at jlab.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Sbs_gems] [EXTERNAL] UV Latency Analysis Results
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> We have finished analyzing a cosmic test after turning the gas flow down
> on layers 1 and 3 from 525 cc/min to 375. The data is attached below. For
> reference:
>
>
>
> *Run 13240: *Taken January 11th with all four UV layers and 2 uA on LH2
> at the SBS-14 kinematic. Gas flow at 525 cc/min
>
> *Run 12423:* Taken January 14th with cosmic data. UV layers 1 and 3 gas
> flowing at 375 cc/min
>
>
>
> These runs are a bit difficult to compare since one is with beam and the
> other is comsic, but it's all that we have. Overall you can see that the
> timing distribution is a bit better for layer 1 and 3, but still not great.
> Also the efficiencies and gains are not significantly reduced by the lower
> gas flow. So I think we can run with this setting.
>
>
>
> Kondo/Nilanga/Xinzhan: Will this reduced gas flow have a greater effect
> with the beam on? I suppose we will find out in two hours anyway.
>
>
>
> Also I would be interested in turning up the voltage on layer 1 and module
> 1 in the XY layer by 25 V. Are there any objections?
>
>
>
> Best,
> Sean
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 3:49 PM Sean Jeffas <sj9ry at virginia.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
>
>
> I am not sure if you meant to only reply to only me, but here are the
> plots you asked for. I actually already had them but decided it was kind of
> overkill.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Sean
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 3:21 PM Andrew Puckett <puckett at jlab.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Sean,
>
>
>
> Interesting results. Another interesting way to visualize these results
> would be in terms of the strip mean times, which might (or might not) have
> somewhat better resolution than the time sample peaking distribution. I
> would also be curious to see a couple of alternative ways of visualizing
> the data. For example:
>
>
>
>    1. A more “binary” approach: 1D and 2D distributions vs. x and/or y
>    for hits peaking in sample 5 and for hits NOT peaking in sample 5
>    2. Same as 1, but perhaps broken out by hits peaking in samples 1, 2,
>    3, 4, 5, etc.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Sbs_gems <sbs_gems-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Sean Jeffas <
> sj9ry at virginia.edu>
> *Date: *Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 3:03 PM
> *To: *Sbs_gems at jlab.org <sbs_gems at jlab.org>
> *Subject: *[Sbs_gems] [EXTERNAL] UV Latency Analysis Results
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I have finished analyzing the spatial distribution of the peak time
> samples. I have attached the results below for two runs.
>
>
>
> *Run 13240: *Taken January 11th with all four UV layers and 2 uA on LH2
> at the SBS-14 kinematic.
>
> *Run 12423:* Taken December 1st with J0 still in the layer 1 position but
> the UV layer was in layer 3 position. This was 2 uA on LD2 at SBS-11.
>
>
>
> In the recent run (13240) you can clearly see the peak time sample is
> uniform over the hit map for every layer except for layer 1 and layer 3.
> Similarly if you look at the December run (12423) the same issue was
> present in layer 3, but we never noticed it because we were always the
> first and last bin out of the analysis. John and I measured the resistors
> on the GEMs today and did not find a resistance that would suggest that the
> gas window has collapsed onto the cathode. Unfortunately the shielding
> blocks us from seeing the gas window, otherwise it would be very easy to
> tell.
>
>
>
> Therefore our current conclusion is that since the GEM layers 1 and 3 both
> have a non uniform gas flow, this is probably causing some bend in the
> readout board, which causes this issue. To fix this we can turn down the
> gas flow rate and see how everything is affected. Since the experiment is
> down for a few days it would be good to turn it down today and take some
> cosmic data, if possible.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Sean
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sbs_gems mailing list
> Sbs_gems at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/sbs_gems
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/sbs_gems/attachments/20220116/12fa9cc5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 286338 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/sbs_gems/attachments/20220116/12fa9cc5/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 13297 Layer 3 Latency.png
Type: image/png
Size: 304142 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/sbs_gems/attachments/20220116/12fa9cc5/attachment-0009.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 13299 Layer 1 Latency.png
Type: image/png
Size: 271178 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/sbs_gems/attachments/20220116/12fa9cc5/attachment-0010.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 13299 Layer 3 - Latency.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1089899 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/sbs_gems/attachments/20220116/12fa9cc5/attachment-0011.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 13297 Layer 1 Efficiency.png
Type: image/png
Size: 175215 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/sbs_gems/attachments/20220116/12fa9cc5/attachment-0012.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 13297 XY GEM1 Efficiency.png
Type: image/png
Size: 165606 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/sbs_gems/attachments/20220116/12fa9cc5/attachment-0013.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 13299 Layer 1 Efficiency.png
Type: image/png
Size: 176801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/sbs_gems/attachments/20220116/12fa9cc5/attachment-0014.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 13299 XY GEM1 Efficiency.png
Type: image/png
Size: 164158 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/sbs_gems/attachments/20220116/12fa9cc5/attachment-0015.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: summaryPlots_13297_bb_gem_10k.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 382472 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/sbs_gems/attachments/20220116/12fa9cc5/attachment-0004.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: summaryPlots_13299_bb_gem_10k.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 377743 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/sbs_gems/attachments/20220116/12fa9cc5/attachment-0005.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: summaryPlots_13297_bb_gem_basic_10k.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1845615 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/sbs_gems/attachments/20220116/12fa9cc5/attachment-0006.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: summaryPlots_13299_bb_gem_basic_10k.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1841798 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/sbs_gems/attachments/20220116/12fa9cc5/attachment-0007.pdf>