T1008 status W.Baldini for the Ferrara and Padova SuperB-IFR Group.

T1008 status

W.Baldini for the Ferrara and Padova SuperB-IFR Group

2

R&D for the SuperB Instrumented Flux Return

• Muon Identification E< 5GeV• Superconducting solenoid Flux Return Instrumented

with active material • Plastic scintillator bars readout through WLS fibers

and Silicon Photo-Multipliers (SiPM)• Baseline layout to be tested on beam with a

prototype• TDR to be written in spring…

The IFR Baseline Detection Technique • Magnet Flux Return instrumented to detect Muons and KL

• BaBar-like detector with hexagonal barrel and two encaps

• Plan to re-use BaBar IFR structure, adding iron to improve μ-ID

• Scintillator as active material to cope with higher flux of particles

• Minos-like scintillator bars readout through WLS fibers and Silicon Photo-Multipliers

• 8-9 active layers

Barrel Endcap

μ

4

The Prototype

Active Layers (Pizza Boxes)

• Iron: 60x60x92 cm3, 9 slots for the active layers • up to 9 active layers readout together • 4 Time Readout (TDC-RO) “standard “• 4 Binary Readout (BiRo) “standard”• 4 special modules to study different fibers or SiPM geometry

Iron

Prototype

Active Layer (“pizza box”)

5

Summary of activities

• Installation: Oct 18-19• Security walkthrough: Oct 19, first beam: Oct 19• Trigger and apparatus setting up • Cherenkov and beam studies:

– Cherenkov pressure scan at 3 and 4 GeV – Collimators ( MT4CH1, MT4CV1) scan: 30 – 60mm aperture

• The above studies took a few days due to the difficulty to find muon/pion thresholds on the Cherenkov and to study the beam composition

• Data taking at 4 GeV and 3 GeV (no 2 GeV)

6

Cherenkov threshold scans

7

Cherenkov pressure scan: 8 GeV (N2)

Expected muon thres.: 4.3 psi

Expected pion thres.: 7.5 psi

(che

r1xS

1xS2

) cou

nts/

bea

m c

ount

s

N2 Pressure (psi)

July data

8

Cherenkov pressure scan: 6 GeV (N2)

Exp. Muon thres.: 13.4 psi

Exp. Muon thres. : 7.7 psi

Normalized S1xS2xC1 counts

Normalized Cherenkov counts

July data

9

Cherenkov pressure scan: 4 GeV (N2)

Exp. Muon thres: 17.3 psi

July data

10

Cherenkov pressure scan C4F8O 4-GeV

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.000.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1.05 C2 4 GeV

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200 Muon(S9xC1) 4 GeV

Should be flat…

Muon/Pion signal (C1)

Electron signal (C2)

Exp. thresholds

Pressure (psi)

Pressure (psi)

• “interference” of the two signals?

• pion peak below expected threshold

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1410

15

20

25

30

35

40muonTRIG / beam int (S9xC1x!C2) 3 GeV

Cherenkov pressure scan C4F8O 3-GeV

Exp. thresholds

4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.001.200000

1.250000

1.300000

1.350000

1.400000

1.450000

1.500000

1.550000 C2 3 GeV

Should be flat…

Electron signal (C2)

Muon “peak” Pion peak

12

Event samples…

Tagged as muons from Cherenkov

Muo

ns fo

rm o

ur d

etec

tor

Electron peak (?)

pions

Track length distribution

m

Layer

The sample of muons contains also many electrons and pions

Data taken at 4 GeV on the muon peak (from cherenkov)

13

Summarizing…..• All these studies are very interesting but…. we should use the

Cherenkov to select clean samples of muons/pions to study the performances of our detector…. (mu/pi identification)

• At low momentum (<6 GeV) it’s clear that the Cherenkov “tagging” is not efficient (broad beam so optic not correct?)

• MWPC DAQ not available no info in our data • TOF info it’s not in our data as well, useful only at 2 GeV, data

not taken • We have some difficulties in understanding the data taken… •