Difference between revisions of "Sequence of MWPCs in Muon Detector"
From GlueXWiki
| (7 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
* We would like to situate the best chambers downstream. Looking at the efficiency curves in Figs 11 and 12 of [https://halldweb.jlab.org/DocDB/0053/005373/002/MWPC_production_testing.pdf GlueX-doc-5373] I made a table of two parameters: the inefficiency at th=0, and the threshold where the efficiency starts climbing. The best chambers have lower inefficiency and higher inflection threshold. Based on this criteria, I suggest the following ordering: | * We would like to situate the best chambers downstream. Looking at the efficiency curves in Figs 11 and 12 of [https://halldweb.jlab.org/DocDB/0053/005373/002/MWPC_production_testing.pdf GlueX-doc-5373] I made a table of two parameters: the inefficiency at th=0, and the threshold where the efficiency starts climbing. The best chambers have lower inefficiency and higher inflection threshold. Based on this criteria, I suggest the following ordering: | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
| − | |+ Table of MWPC efficiency | + | |+ Table of MWPC efficiency, plateau width, and z-position in hall D |
|- | |- | ||
| − | ! Number !! MWPC !! inefficiency (x10^-3) !! Plateau width | + | ! Number !! MWPC !! inefficiency (x10^-3) !! Plateau width (x10^6 integrated counts) !! z [cm] |
| − | (x10^6 integrated counts) | + | |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | 1 || Arwen || style="text-align: center;" |3 || style="text-align: center;" | 6 | + | | 1 || Arwen || style="text-align: center;" |3 || style="text-align: center;" | 6 || 811.62 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | 2 || Bilbo ||style="text-align: center;" | 1.8||style="text-align: center;" | 9 | + | | 2 || Bilbo ||style="text-align: center;" | 1.8||style="text-align: center;" | 9 || 827.79 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | 3 || Celeborn ||style="text-align: center;" | 1.5 ||style="text-align: center;" | 6 | + | | 3 || Celeborn ||style="text-align: center;" | 1.5 ||style="text-align: center;" | 6 || 849.04 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | |4 || Haldor ||style="text-align: center;" | 1.2 ||style="text-align: center;" | 8 | + | |4 || Haldor ||style="text-align: center;" | 1.2 ||style="text-align: center;" | 8 || 890.65 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | 5 || Denethor ||style="text-align: center;" | 1.2 ||style="text-align: center;" | 9 | + | | 5 || Denethor ||style="text-align: center;" | 1.2 ||style="text-align: center;" | 9 || 931.84 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | 6 || Eowyn ||style="text-align: center;" | 1.3 ||style="text-align: center;" | 10 | + | | 6 || Eowyn ||style="text-align: center;" | 1.3 ||style="text-align: center;" | 10 || 941.12 |
|} | |} | ||
| − | * | + | * We have left all chambers in alphabetical order, except for Haldor that is slightly worse than Denethor an Eowyn. Note that Haldor is almost as good as Denethor, so keeping complete alphabetical order is almost as good as the list above. The next table has the parameters for the two spares. |
| + | |||
| + | {| class="wikitable" | ||
| + | |+ Table of Spares: MWPC efficiency and plateau width | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | ! Number !! MWPC !! inefficiency (x10^-3) !! Plateau width (x10^6 integrated counts) !! Comment | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | 7 || Frodo (Th=600) || style="text-align: center;" |11 || style="text-align: center;" | 7 || | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | 8 || Galadriel (Th=500) ||style="text-align: center;" | 4 ||style="text-align: center;" | 5 || [https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3922895 Inefficient Wire#37] | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |} | ||
Latest revision as of 14:58, 13 June 2022
- We would like to situate the best chambers downstream. Looking at the efficiency curves in Figs 11 and 12 of GlueX-doc-5373 I made a table of two parameters: the inefficiency at th=0, and the threshold where the efficiency starts climbing. The best chambers have lower inefficiency and higher inflection threshold. Based on this criteria, I suggest the following ordering:
| Number | MWPC | inefficiency (x10^-3) | Plateau width (x10^6 integrated counts) | z [cm] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Arwen | 3 | 6 | 811.62 |
| 2 | Bilbo | 1.8 | 9 | 827.79 |
| 3 | Celeborn | 1.5 | 6 | 849.04 |
| 4 | Haldor | 1.2 | 8 | 890.65 |
| 5 | Denethor | 1.2 | 9 | 931.84 |
| 6 | Eowyn | 1.3 | 10 | 941.12 |
- We have left all chambers in alphabetical order, except for Haldor that is slightly worse than Denethor an Eowyn. Note that Haldor is almost as good as Denethor, so keeping complete alphabetical order is almost as good as the list above. The next table has the parameters for the two spares.
| Number | MWPC | inefficiency (x10^-3) | Plateau width (x10^6 integrated counts) | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Frodo (Th=600) | 11 | 7 | |
| 8 | Galadriel (Th=500) | 4 | 5 | Inefficient Wire#37 |
