sphenix-electronics-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: sPHENIX discussion of electronics
List archive
Re: [Sphenix-electronics-l] Slides from yesterday's Electronics Meeting
- From: woody <woody AT bnl.gov>
- To: Nathan Grau <ngrau AT augie.edu>
- Cc: sphenix-electronics-l AT lists.bnl.gov
- Subject: Re: [Sphenix-electronics-l] Slides from yesterday's Electronics Meeting
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 17:44:04 -0400
Hi Nathan, Thanks for the slides. This was indeed a very interesting study. I can't say that I understand all that's going on, but it's somewhat disturbing that we can't reproduce the 40 mV spread in the Vops that Hamamatsu is supposed to be giving us. We know from previous measurements that our SPS method of determining the gain was very nicely correlated with Hamamatu's method of measuring the gain. I'm not sure why they consider their method of determining the gain a trade secret since we've discussed this with them many times. Maybe they've changed their method, but in the past, they have simply used a DC light source that they calibrate with a PIN diode for which they know the absolute QE (which gives them photons/sec), and then use that to measure the current from the SiPM for which they (presumably) know the QE. However, maybe the problem is that they don't know the absolute QE of every device and just have to rely on the average, or maybe they use some other trick. I think we can probably find this out from them with some coaxing, but I'm pretty sure, whatever method the use, it probably involves measuring a DC current rather than the SPE spectrum, and we do know that there can be some difference between the two. However, I would think that may result in some overall systematic difference between our method and theirs, but it should not give any batch to batch variations (unless perhaps there is some variation in the QE from batch to batch). Nevertheless, the good news in all this is that even if the spread is as large as you measured, it doesn't seem to have a huge effect on our energy resolution. It would certainly be good if that were true. However, as we discussed in the meeting yesterday, things will only get worse after radiation damage, so let's hope the overall effect remains small. Cheers, Craig On 9/26/2019 9:43 AM, Nathan Grau
wrote:
Hi Craig,
Here they are. I'll try to get them posted today. I thought
that Eric might move some things to the Sept 25 date. Your
input would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Nathan
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 2:24
AM Craig Woody <woody AT bnl.gov> wrote:
Hi
Nathan,Could you please send me (or post) a copy of the slides you showed at yesterday's Electronics Meeting ? I'd like to go back and have a closer looks at some of the results you showed. Many thanks, Craig Nathan Grau
Associate Professor of Physics(605) 274-5012 |
-
Re: [Sphenix-electronics-l] Slides from yesterday's Electronics Meeting,
woody, 09/26/2019
-
Re: [Sphenix-electronics-l] Slides from yesterday's Electronics Meeting,
Nathan Grau, 09/27/2019
- Re: [Sphenix-electronics-l] Slides from yesterday's Electronics Meeting, Edouard Kistenev, 09/27/2019
-
Re: [Sphenix-electronics-l] Slides from yesterday's Electronics Meeting,
eric mannel, 09/27/2019
- Re: [Sphenix-electronics-l] Slides from yesterday's Electronics Meeting, Nathan Grau, 09/27/2019
-
Re: [Sphenix-electronics-l] Slides from yesterday's Electronics Meeting,
Nathan Grau, 09/27/2019
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.