NSWPublicResults
Introduction
The plots shown below have been approved by the NSW Project and may be shown by ATLAS speakers at conferences. Do not add plots on your own but contact the NSW project leader to arrange a plot approval.Plot Approval Procedure
Plots and data concerning NSW detector performance, including test beam and/or module-0 results, can only be shown publicly if approved. Plots/results are approved by the NSW project leader after a discussion in the NSW Steering Group. Before requesting the approval of a plot, it should be presented, discussed and agreed on in the appropriate community, eg using theThe official plot approval procedure is in place since October 2014, it was defined together with and endorsed by the Muon IB in its session on October 16 2014.
Technical Design Report
Here
is the Technical Design Report from 2013. The link also provides access to the individual figures of the TDR.
Conference Contributions
Here is a list of Muon System talks given at conferences.
Here is a list of NSW, sTGC and MM talks given at conferences.
MicroMegas Results and Plots
MM Chamber Construction
Public Talks at conferences
Public Plots
MM Performance
Public Talks at conferences
Public Plots
| In the following, performance studies of Micromegas detectors performed with test-beams on several small (10x10 cm2) / medium(1x0.5 m2) size resistive chambers will be reported. In particular the chambers that will be referred to are:
|  |
| Fig. 1: Integrated charge for one APV channel for a single event Typical integrated charge from one MicroMegas strip readout with the APV25 hybrid cards (through the Scalable Readout System) operated at 40 MHz with 27 samples. A fit with a Fermi-Dirac function with an additional baseline is performed to determine the strip-hit time, which is defined as the inflection point of the fitted function. Strip-hit charge is measured in the anlayses from the maximum of this distribution or from the plateau of the FD function, in both cases subtracting the fitted baseline. pdf1 pdf2 |  |  |
| Fig. 2: Event display (μTPC and Centroid) Display of an event acquired with chamber T4 on particles with a 30 degrees inclination during a test beam at H4. (Bottom) charge read by each of the strips. (Top) reconstructed centroid and μTPC track. |  |
| Fig. 3: Efficiency map 2D hit reconstruction in a Tmm chamber during a high statistics run. For this study the chamber was kept perpendicular to the beam axis. The hit position in both X and Y readouts is calculated using the centroid method and only events with a single cluster per readout (perpendicular tracks) are used. The inefficient spots appearing every 2.5 mm, corresponding to the pillar structure supporting the mesh of the chamber, are visible. Four different representations of the same plot are shown. The measurements were performed with a Tmm type MM bulk resistive chamber operated with an amplification voltage of HVamp = 540 V. The data were acquired during PS/T9 with a 10 GeV/c π+/p beam. pdf1 pdf2 |  |  |
| Fig. 4: Efficiency map Hit reconstruction efficiency as a function of the extrapolated reference track hit position for a 2D readout chamber of Tmm type. The reference track is reconstructed from 3 Tmm chambers and is then extrapolated to the fourth Tmm under study. Left column corresponds to X and right column corresponds to Y. The first row shows the efficiency for an irradiated area 20 mm wide. The efficiency dips 15% appearing every 2.5 mm correspond to the pillar structure supporting the mesh. The second row focuses only on selected areas on the Y readout of the chamber which are around the pillar region (bands 500μm). The effect of the pillars is more severe in these regions reaching local efficiency dips of the order of 40%. By scanning only the region in between the pillars the efficiency is uniform along the readout channels and a high efficiency is measured for both layers (above 98%). The Y readout shows higher efficiency owing to the fact that it is right below the resistive strips and thus it accumulates more charge than the X layer. The measurements were performed with a Tmm type MM bulk resistive chamber operated with an amplification voltage of HVamp = 540 V. The data were acquired during PS/T9 with a 10 GeV/c π+/p beam. |  |
| Fig. 5: Efficiency map Hit reconstruction efficiency as a function of the extrapolated reference track hit for 2 small T type bulk resistive MM chambers namely TQF, T2. The reference track is reconstructed from 4 Tmm chambers and is then extrapolated to the chamber under study. The two plots on the left correspond to data acquried with the chambers perpendicular to the beam axis while for the two right plots the chambers were inclined by 30 degrees. In both cases the centroid method is used for the reconstruction of the hits. The efficiency dips (5%) appearing every 5 and 2.5 mm respectively correspond to the pillar structure supporting the mesh. The pitch between the pillars and their size are different for the two chambers under study as it is evident from the plots. The TQF chamber has 500 μm wide pillars with a pitch of 5 mm while the T2 pillars are $300μm wide with a pitch of 2.5 mm. In the case of the inclined chambers the particles traverse the chambers under an angle inducing signal in larger number of strips compared to the 0 degrees case. In this case the efficiency is expected to be unaffected by the pillars as it is shown on the two plots corresponding to the 30 degrees case (above 99%). The measurements were performed with T type MM bulk resistive chambers operated with an amplification voltage HVamp = 540 V. The data were acquired during PS/T10 with a 6 GeV/c π+/p$ beam. pdf1 pdf2 |   |
| Fig. 6: Effect of the pillars on the hit reconstruction Apart from the efficiency the pillar structure affects also the hit reconstruction intriducing a bias in the hits reconstructed in their region. This effect (bias) is studied using a set of three Tmm chambers to reconstruct a reference track which is then extrapolated to a fourth Tmm chamber. Chambers are kept perpendicular to the beam and the hit in each chamber is reconstructed using the centroid method. In the top plot, the residuals between the hit reconstructed in the chamber under study and the reference tracks are plotted versus the reconstructed hit position. In the bottom plot the reconstructed 2-D hit position in the same chamber is plotted. The position of the pillars is clearly visible in the bottom plot and the observed bias in the reconstructed hit position can be associasated with the position of the pillars comapring the two plots. The bias is evident in each pillar region with a maximum value 150μm. The measurements were performed with Tmm type MM bulk resistive chambers operated with an amplification voltage HVamp = 540 V. The data were acquired during PS/T9 with a 6 GeV/c π+/p$ beam. |  |
| Fig. 7: Spatial resolution of precision coordinate of Tmm/Tmb chambers Residual distributions from the hit position difference between a Tmm and a Tmb chamber, divided by √2 (assuming similar resolution for both chambers sice the effect of the different pillar pattern is negligible), featuring a 2D readout. The left plot corresponds to the residuals of the X readouts while the right one shows the Y hit residuals. For this measurement the chambers were kept perpendicular to the beam and the hit reconstruction was done using the centroid method selecting single cluster events in both chambers. A similar performance, in terms of spatial resolution, for X and Y readouts is observed. σcore corresponds to the width of the core gaussian while σweight is the weighted average of the two gaussians σweight2=fcoreσcore2+ftailsσtails2, fcore,tails=pcore,tailsσcore,tails/(pcoreσcore+ptailsσtails) The measurements were performed with Tmm and Tmb type MM bulk resistive chambers operated with an amplification voltage HVamp = 540 V. The data were acquired during SPS/H4 testbeam with a 150 GeV/c μ/π+ beam. pdf1 pdf2 |  |  |
| Fig. 8: Spatial resolution of the T chambers Residual distributions from the hit position difference between two T type MM chambers (T2,T4) , divided by √2. For this measurement the chambers were kept perpendicular to the beam and the hit reconstruction was done using the centroid method selecting single cluster events in both chambers. σcore corresponds to the width of the core gaussian while σweight is the weighted average of the two gaussians σweight2=fcoreσcore2+ftailsσtails2, fcore,tails=pcore,tailsσcore,tails/(pcoreσcore+ptailsσtails) The measurements were performed with T type MM bulk resistive chambers operated with an amplification voltage HVamp = 550 V.The data were acquired during SPS/H4 testbeam with a 150 GeV/c μ/π+ beam. |  |
| Fig. 9: Spatial resolution of precision coordinate of the MMSW The MMSW is the Micromegas Quadruplet Prototype. Residuals between the first and the second layer of the MMSW, both with strips measuring the precision coordinate, divided by √2 (assuming similar resolution for both layers). σcore corresponds to the width of the core gaussian while σweight is the weighted average of the two gaussians σweight2=fcoreσcore2+ftailsσtails2, fcore,tails=pcore,tailsσcore,tails/(pcoreσcore+ptailsσtails) The measurements were performed with the MMSW quadruplet operated with an amplification voltage $HVamp = 580 V. The data were acquired during PS/T9 with a 6 GeV/c π+/p$ beam. |
 |
| Fig. 10: Spatial resolution of precision coordinate of the MMSW Left: Residuals between the second and the combination of the two stereo readout layers. Right: Residuals between the first and the combination of the two stereo readout layers. The residuals are divided by √1.5 (assuming similar resolution for all 3 layers) because the second hit is reconstructed by combining the two stereo layers (T.Alexopoulos et al., ATL-MUON-INT-2014-005}).\The observed degradation of the measured spatial resolution is mainly owing to the multiple scattering in the material between the layers under study and thus is proportional to the distance separating them (L1,2<L2,34<L1,34). The worse resolution measured compared to the Tmm case is mainly attributed to the different strip pitch. σcore corresponds to the width of the core gaussian while σweight is the weighted average of the two gaussians σweight2=fcoreσcore2+ftailsσtails2, fcore,tails=pcore,tailsσcore,tails/(pcoreσcore+ptailsσtails) The measurements were performed with the MMSW quadruplet operated with an amplification voltage $HVamp = 580 V. The data were acquired during PS/T9 with a 6 GeV/c π+/p$ beam. pdf1 pdf2 |  |  |
| Fig. 11: Spatial resolution of second coordinate of the MMSW Left : Residual distributions from the hit position difference between the 2nd coordinate hit, reconstructed using the stereo readout 3 and 4 layers of MMSW, with a 2nd coordinate hit reconstructed in one reference chamber at a distance 20 cm from the first plane of the MMSW. Both chambers wee perpendicular to the beam axis and the hit per layer is reconstructed using the centroid method. Right : MC simulation of the ratio between the resolution of the 2nd hit reconstructed combining two stereo layers with the precision coordinate resolution of each stereo layer as a function of the stereo angle value (T.Alexopoulos et al., ATL-MUON-INT-2014-005 ). For a stereo angle of 1.5 degrees, as in the MMSW case, we expect this ratio to be 27 which is in good agreement with our measurement.σcore corresponds to the width of the core gaussian while σweight is the weighted average of the two gaussians σweight2=fcoreσcore2+ftailsσtails2, fcore,tails=pcore,tailsσcore,tails/(pcoreσcore+ptailsσtails) The measurements were performed with the MMSW quadruplet operated with an amplification voltage $HVamp = 580 V. The data were acquired during PS/T9 with a 6 GeV/c π+/p$ beam. pdf1 pdf2 |
 |  |
| Fig. 12: μTPC refinement - Angular Dsitributions Angular distributions reconstructed with a T type MM chamber with the μTPC method for four different chamber inclination angles with respect to the beam axis (10, 20, 30, 40 degrees). The long tails correspond to badly reconstructed tracks because of wrong timing determination or owing to clusters with small number of strips. The mean reconstructed angle is estimated by fitting a gaussian on the peak of the distribution. The angular resolution (width of the gaussian) improves with increasing the incidence angle of the track owing to the fact that there is a larger number of points (strips) to be used for the reconstruction of the track. The measurements were performed with T type MM bulk resistive chambers operated with an amplification voltage HVamp = 510 V.The data were acquired during SPS/H4 testbeam with a 150 GeV/c μ/π+ beam. pdf1 pdf2 pdf3 pdf4 |
  |  
|
| Fig. 13: μTPC refinement - Angle Reconstruction and Spatial Resolution Left: Comparison of the mean reconstructed angle for different chamber inclination angles with respect to the beam axis before (blue markers) and after (red markers) the refinement of the μTPC method. When the μTPC method is corrected for the effect of the capacitive coupling between neighboring strips and the charge position assignment in the edges of the cluster a significant reduction in the observed mean reconstructed angle bias is observed. The remaining bias is attributed to the remaining effect of the capacitive coupling between the middle strips of the cluster. Right: Comparison of the spatial resolution measured for different chamber inclination angles with respect to the beam axis (blue markers) and after (red markers) the refinement of the μTPC method. The refinement of the μTPC method results in a siginficant improvement in the measured spatial resolution (especially for the 10, 20 degrees case). The residual distributions that are used for the extraction of the resolution are fitted with a double gaussian to take into account also the tails. For the resolution plot shown here the resolution is defined as the σ of the core gaussian. The measurements were performed with T type MM bulk resistive chambers operated with an amplification voltage HVamp = 510 V.The data were acquired during SPS/H4 testbeam with a 150 GeV/c μ/π+ beam. pdf1 pdf2 |
 | 
|
| Fig. 14: Spatial resolution of a single Micromegas chamber vs incident angle Spatial resolution using the charge centroid method (blue triangles), the μTPC method (full red circles) and the combination of the two (black open circles)” as a function of the particle incident angle. The resolution is obtained from the residual distribution of the hit position difference between two Micromegas chambers separated by a small distance. |
 |
| Fig. 15: Ageing studies on a Micromegas chamber irradiated with x-rays Mesh current measured in a MM test prototype chamber similar to a "Tmm type" prototype irradiated with x-rays and compared with that measured in a reference, non-irradiated detector. The total irradiation dose is 230 mC/cm2, corresponding to 5 years of operation at the high-luminosity LHC with a safety factor above 7. The measurement has been performed at the CEA-Saclay site. 2013 JINST 8 P04028. |
 |
| Fig. 20: Micromegas cluster width (number of hits+holes per cluster) vs amplification voltage (HV). The cluster are defined with at most two consecutive holes, the highest strip charge is greater than \SI{1.2}{\femto\coulomb} and the other strips charge is grater than \SI{0.4}{\femto\coulomb} and its associated position is calculated using the centroid method. The clusters are used in the plot only if the residuals (cluster - track position reconstructed using the other layers of the double wedge) is less than 5 mm for the eta layers or 10 mm for the stereo layer (if there are more than one cluster per event, the closest to the extrapolated position is chosen). |  |
| Fig. 21: Mean Micromegas cluster charge vs amplification voltage (HV). The cluster are defined with at most two consecutive holes, the highest strip charge is greater than \SI{1.2}{\femto\coulomb} and the other strips charge is grater than \SI{0.4}{\femto\coulomb} and its associated position is calculated using the centroid method. The clusters are used in the plot only if the residuals (cluster - track position reconstructed using the other layers of the double wedge) is less than 5 mm for the eta layers or 10 mm for the stereo layer (if there are more than one cluster per event, the closest to the extrapolated position is chosen) |  |
| Fig. 22: Micromegas efficiency map at 570 V. The position of the interconnections is visible in the point with less efficiency. The efficiency is evaluated using the tag and probe method. The probe is the track reconstructed using at least 5 other layers of the double wedge while the tag is a cluster that is within $\pm$ 5 mm for the eta layers respect to extrapolated track position. The clusters are defined with at most two consecutive holes, the highest strip charge is greater than \SI{1.2}{\femto\coulomb} and the other strips charge is grater than \SI{0.4}{\femto\coulomb} and its associated position is calculated using the centroid method |  |
| Fig. 23: Micromegas efficiency vs amplification voltage (HV). The efficiency is evaluated using the tag and probe method. The probe is the track reconstructed using at least 5 other layers of the double wedge while the tag is a cluster that is within $\pm$ 5 mm for the eta layers and $\pm$ 10 mm for the stereo ones respect to extrapolated track position. The clusters are defined with at most two consecutive holes, the highest strip charge is greater than \SI{1.2}{\femto\coulomb} and the other strips charge is grater than \SI{0.4}{\femto\coulomb} and its associated position is calculated using the centroid method |  |
|
Fig. 24: Hit map for a single Micromegas layer from Cosmics BB5 data (June 2021)
Hit map for a single Micromegas layer. The track reconstructed using at least 5 other layers of the double wedge. The yellow areas highlight the geometric acceptance regions of the two sets of scintillators used as triggers at the BB5 cosmic ray stand. |
|
Fig. 25.1: Micromegas RMS Baseline from Cosmics BB5 data - Eta layer, Small Wedge (June 2021)
Baseline rms per strip for one eta layer of the Micromegas Small Sector C10. The layer used for the plot is of the eta type (with the strips orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the double wedge). The run used for this plot has been recorded at BB5 and is named 2021\_04\_14\_14h17m47s. The baseline rms values are indicative of the detector noise and depend on the input capacitance to each electronic channel. As expected, the rms value is increasing as a function of the strip number and the corresponding strip length. The dot lines define the MMFE8 boards (16 in total) while bold dot lines define the PCBs (8 in total) of the layer. The noisy channels are defined all the channels above red limits (1.4 times board\_median), the dead channels are defined all channels below blue limits (0.6 times board\_median) while the channels between these limits are defined as normal. Also in each sector type they are some standard unconnected channels that are cutted on this plot. |
|
Fig. 25.2: Micromegas RMS Baseline from Cosmics BB5 data - Stereo Layer; Small Wedge (June 2021)
Baseline rms per strip for one stereo layer of the Micromegas Small Sector C08. The effect of the decreasing length of the strips at the beginning and at the end of the modules in the stereo layers, can be shown in these areas. |
|
Fig. 25.3: Micromegas RMS Baseline from Cosmics BB5 data - Eta Layer; Large Wedge (June 2021)
Baseline rms per strip for one eta layer of the Micromegas Large Sector C13. |
|
Fig. 25.4: Micromegas RMS Baseline from Cosmics BB5 data - Stereo Layer; Large Wedge (June 2021)
Baseline rms per strip for one stereo layer of the Micromegas Large Sector C13. The effect of the decreasing length of the strips at the beginning and at the end of the modules in the stereo layers, can be shown in these areas. |
|
Fig. 26: Micromegas Cluster Width (June 2021)
Micromegas cluster width (number of hits+holes per cluster) vs the incident angle $\theta$ taken from the track reconstruction using the other layers of the double-wedge. The layers used for the plot are of the eta type (with the strips orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the double wedge). The cluster are defined with at most two consecutive holes and the associated position is calculated using the centroid method. The clusters are used in the plot only if the residuals (cluster - track position) is less than 5 mm (if there are more than one cluster per event, the closest to the extrapolated position is chosen. |
|
Fig. 27.1: Efficiency Vs MMFE8 threshold - angles 0-10 deg (June 2021)
Micromegas single layer efficiency vs the average threshold applied to the MMFE8. Each entry of the TH2 histogram is an MMFE8. The plot is made using seven different runs with different thresholds applied (8x, 9x, 10x, 11x, 12x, 15x, 18x RMS) so each MMFE8 enters seven times in the plot. Only MMFE8 connected to good PCBs (nominal voltage and without any efficiency problems) are used. The efficiency is evaluated using the tag and probe method. The angular range is $0 \leq |\theta| < 10\ deg$ on the precision coordinate while $0 \leq |\theta| < 5\ deg$ on the second coordinate. The probe is the track reconstructed using at least 5 other layers of the double wedge while the tag is a cluster that is within $\pm$ 5 mm for the eta layers respect to extrapolated track position. The black points are the average values of each bins and the red curve is a second order polynomial fit to the data. |
|
Fig. 27.2: Efficiency Vs MMFE8 threshold - angles 10-20 deg (June 2021)
|
|
Fig. 27.3: Efficiency Vs MMFE8 threshold - angles 20-30 deg (June 2021)
|
|
Fig. 28: Mean Micromegas cluster charge vs amplification voltage (June 2021)
Mean Micromegas cluster charge vs amplification voltage (HV). The average is calculated using one layer for all the small double-wedge of the NSW-A. The cluster are defined with at most two consecutive holes and the associated position is calculated using the centroid method. The clusters are used in the plot only if the residuals (cluster - track position reconstructed using the other layers of the double wedge) is less than 5 mm for the eta layers or 10 mm for the stereo layer (if there are more than one cluster per event, the closest to the extrapolated position is chosen). |
|
Fig. 29: Spatial resolution with cosmic rays at BB5 for vertical tracks (June 2021)
Residuals between Layer 0 (eta) and Layer 1 (eta) of A06. Only track reconstructed with $|\theta_{xz}| < 1$ deg and $|\theta_{yz}| < 10$ deg are used, with the track reconstructed using at least 5 layers of the double-wedge. The VMM configuration is Neighbour logic OFF, Threshold at 9xRMS, peak time of 200 ns and the HV of the layers are 570 V. The resolutions are extracted using a double Gaussian fit. The core, tail and weighted sigma are written on the plot. To be noted that the spatial resolution with cosmic rays at BB5 is affected by multiple scattering (no absorbers, hence no energy thresholds) and by the angular spread ($\pm 1^{circ}$) which have an impact (in quadrature) of the order of $100\ \mu m$. |
|
Fig. 30.1: LM1 Chambers Spatial resolution vs incident angle at BB5 with cosmic rays at BB5 (June 2021)
Resolution on precision coordinate of Eta layers. In this plot is calculated between Layer 7 (eta) and Layer 6 (eta) for $|\theta_{xz}| = 0.1^{\circ}$ angle interval. For the analyses used only sectors with 570 V supply. The VMM configuration is Neighbour logic OFF, Threshold at 9$\times$RMS and peak time of 200 ns.} |
 |
|
Fig. 30.2: LM2 Chambers Spatial resolution vs incident angle at BB5 with cosmic rays at BB5(June 2021)
|
|
Fig. 30.3: SM1 Chambers Spatial resolution vs incident angle at BB5 with cosmic rays at BB5 (June 2021)
|
|
Fig. 30.4: SM2 Chambers Spatial resolution vs incident angle at BB5 with cosmic rays at BB5 (June 2021)
|
|
Fig. 31.1: MM Time resolution from cosmic rays data at BB5 (June 2021)
Micromegas time resolution of sector A16 from run 1590880288 at peaking time \SI{200}{\nano\second}, NL OFF and 9xRMS applied threshold. A resolution of \SI{25.9}{\nano\second} is extracted from a gaussian fit of earliest hit time differences between layers, divided by $\sqrt{2}$. All 28 layers combinations of MM are used. Resolution is per MMFE8, with radius 13 shown. Radius 13 corresponds to the portion of layer readout by MMFE8 \#13, located at the top half of PCB 7 on SM2. The incident angle range is $20 < \theta < 25\ deg$. |
|
Fig. 31.2: MM Time resolution from cosmic rays data at BB5 (June 2021)
Micromegas time resolution of sector A16 from run 1590880288 at peaking time \SI{200}{\nano\second}, NL OFF and 9xRMS applied threshold. Resolution is extracted from a gaussian fit of earliest hit time differences between layers, divided by $\sqrt{2}$. Consecutive layer combinations of MM are used. Resolution is per MMFE8, with radius 13 shown. Radius 13 corresponds to the portion of layer readout by MMFE8 \#13, located at the top half of PCB 7 on SM2. The incident angle range is $20 < \theta < 25\ deg$. |
Micromegas TEST BEAM Results
|
Fig. 1: SM2 Module 1 Spatial resolution for perpendicular track from 2017 TB data (uploaded June 2021)
Residuals between Layer 0 (eta) and Layer 1 (eta). The VMM configuration is Neighbour logic ON, Threshold at 8xRMS, peak time of 200 ns and the HV of the layers are 580 V. The resolutions are extracted using a double Gaussian fit. The core, tail and weighted sigma are written on the plot. |
|
Fig. 2.1: SM2 Module 1 Spatial resolution (core) including uTPC method from 2017 TB data (uploaded June 2021)
Single layer resolution of SM2 M1 from test beam for different clusterization methods and different setting of the VMM readout chip. The resolutions are extracted using a double gaussian fit. The plot shows the core resolutions.The numbers are indicating the single layer efficiencies. The low efficiencies for the uTPC clusterization can be explained by high noise levels which were present in the testbeam environement and have been reduced to the theretical limit in the mean time. |
|
Fig. 2.2: SM2 Module 1 Spatial resolution (weighted) including uTPC method from 2017 TB data (uploaded June 2021)
Single layer resolution of SM2 M1 from test beam for different clusterization methods and different setting of the VMM readout chip. The resolutions are extracted using a double gaussian fit. The plot shows the weighted resolutions. |
sTGC Results and Plots
sTGC Chamber and Wedge Construction
Public Talks at conferences
Public Plots
|
Fig. 1: Distribution of the pulse peak values of sTGC strip hits during a typical data acquisition run with X-rays.
During the run, the X-ray gun is positioned over the QS3 module of an sTGC wedge. The module is flushed with pure CO2 and operates at 2.925 kV. Hits from the strips of the second gas volume from the top and in the vicinity of the X-ray beam are shown. The sTGC module under test is read out with VMM3a ASICs mounted on strip front-end boards (sFEB) rev. 2.1. The VMM3a is configured with neighbour triggering enabled, a gain of 1.0 mV/fC and an integration time of 50 ns. The voltage threshold of the electronic channels is tuned on a channel-by-channel basis to be 20 mV above the voltage baseline. |
|
|
Fig. 2: Number of strips making up charge clusters during a typical X-ray data acquisition run.
During the run, the X-ray gun is positioned over the QS3 module of an sTGC wedge. The module is flushed with pure CO2 and operates at 2.925 kV. Hits from the strips of the second gas volume from the top and in the vicinity of the X-ray beam are shown. The sTGC module under test is read out with VMM3a ASICs mounted on strip front-end boards (sFEB) rev. 2.1. The VMM3a is configured with neighbour triggering enabled, a gain of 1.0 mV/fC and an integration time of 50 ns. The voltage threshold of the electronic channels is tuned on a channel-by-channel basis to be 20 mV above the voltage baseline. Charge clusters are defined as a collection of contiguous strip hits read out within a time window of 3 BCID (75 ns). The charge clusters selected for analysis must be made up of neighbour-triggered hits from the outer strips and above-threshold hits from the inner strips which implies a minimum strip multiplicity of 3. Charge clusters with strip-multiplicities below or equal to 5 are used for the analysis of X-ray data. |
|
|
Fig. 3: Sum of the pulse peak values of hits making up a charge cluster during a typical X-ray data acquisition run.
During the run, the X-ray gun is positioned over the QS3 module of an sTGC wedge. The module is flushed with pure CO2 and operates at 2.925 kV. Hits from the strips of the second gas volume from the top and in the vicinity of the X-ray beam are shown. The sTGC module under test is read out with VMM3a ASICs mounted on strip front-end boards (sFEB) rev. 2.1. The VMM3a is configured with neighbour triggering enabled, a gain of 1.0 mV/fC and an integration time of 50 ns. The voltage threshold of the electronic channels is tuned on a channel-by-channel basis to be 20 mV above the voltage baseline. Charge clusters are defined as a collection of contiguous strip hits read out within a time window of 3 BCID (75 ns). Results for charge clusters with strip-multiplicities of 3 to 5 are shown. |
|
|
Fig. 4: Centroid position of strip charge clusters during an X-ray run with the collimator removed for strip multiplicities of (a)-(e) 3, (b)-(f) 4 and (c)-(g) 5 as well as for clusters multiplicities (d)-(h) 3 to 5 combined.
The raw centroid positions, denoted ycl, are shown in (a-d) and the centroid positions corrected for differential non-linearity (DNL), denoted y'cl, shown in (e-h). The DNL bias is corrected using the formula y'rel = yrel + ΣNi=1 ci / (2πi) sin( 2πiyrel) where y'rel and yrel are the cluster centroid positions relative to the nominal strip edges. An independent correction with N=3 is applied for each strip multiplicity. The coefficients ci used for the correction are obtained based on the distributions of yrel of the run. Only clusters from the strips located in the plateau of the X-ray irradiation profile are shown and used for the calculation of the coefficients ci. The pink dashed lines highlight the nominal edges of the strips. During the run, the module is flushed with pure CO2 and operates at 2.925 kV. Hits from the strips of the second gas volume from the top and in the vicinity of the X-ray beam are shown. The sTGC module under test is read out with VMM3a ASICs mounted on strip front-end boards (sFEB) rev. 2.1. The VMM3a is configured with neighbour triggering enabled, a gain of 1.0mV/fC and an integration time of 50 ns. The voltage threshold of the electronic channels is tuned on a channel-by-channel basis to be 20 mV above the voltage baseline. Charge clusters are defined as a collection of contiguous strip hits read out within a time window of 3 BCID (75 ns). |
|
| Fig. 5: Cluster centroid position relative to the strip edges, denoted yrel, during an X-ray run without collimator for strip-multiplicities of (a) 3, (b) 4 and (c) 5. The distributions are fitted to the sum of cosines f(yrel) = 1 + ΣNi=1 ci cos( 2πi yrel) with N=3. The fitted coefficients ci are used to correct the differential non-linearity bias of runs with collimator. Only clusters from strips located in the plateau of the X-ray irradiation profile are shown and used for the calculation of the coefficients ci. During the run, the module is flushed with pure CO2 and operates at 2.925 kV. Hits from the strips of the second gas volume from the top and in the vicinity of the X-ray beam are shown. The sTGC module under test is read out with VMM3a ASICs mounted on strip front-end boards (sFEB) rev. 2.1. The VMM3a is configured with neighbour triggering enabled, a gain of 1.0 mV/fC and an integration time of 50 ns. The voltage threshold of the electronic channels is tuned on a channel-by-channel basis to be 20 mV above the voltage baseline. Charge clusters are defined as a collection of contiguous strip hits read out within a time window of 3 BCID (75 ns). |
|
| Fig. 6: Centroid position of strip charge clusters during a typical X-ray run with collimator for strip multiplicities of (a)-(e) 3, (b)-(f) 4 and (c)-(g) 5 as well as for clusters multiplicities (d)-(h) 3 to 5 combined. The raw centroid positions, denoted ycl, are shown in (a-d) and the centroid positions corrected for differential non-linearity (DNL), denoted y'cl, shown in (e-h). The DNL bias is corrected using the formula y'rel = yrel + ΣNi=1 ci/(2πi) sin(2πiyrel) where y'rel and yrel are the cluster centroid positions relative to the nominal strip edges. An independent correction with N=3 is applied for each strip multiplicity. The coefficients ci used for the correction are obtained based on the yrel distributions of runs without collimator. The pink dashed lines highlight the nominal edges of the strips. The distribution of Fig. (h) is fitted to a Gaussian function. The mean parameter μfit of the fitted function is used as the centroid position of the X-ray profile. During the run, the module is flushed with pure CO2 and operates at 2.925 kV. Hits from the strips of the second gas volume from the top and in the vicinity of the X-ray beam are shown. The sTGC module under test is read out with VMM3a ASICs mounted on strip front-end boards (sFEB) rev. 2.1. The VMM3a is configured with neighbour triggering enabled, a gain of 1.0 mV/fC and an integration time of 50 ns. The voltage threshold of the electronic channels is tuned on a channel-by-channel basis to be 20 mV above the voltage baseline. Charge clusters are defined as a collection of contiguous strip hits read out within a time window of 3 BCID (75 ns). |
|
| Fig. 7: Centroid position of the X-ray irradiation profile as a function of the position of a micrometric screw pushing the X-ray gun perpendicularly to the strips over the surface of an sTGC wedge. The X-ray gun is inserted in the holder piece. A square edge is glued to the surface of the wedge to guide the movement of the holder. The charge clusters making up the irradiation profile are corrected for differential non-linearity using correction coefficients obtained with an X-ray run without the collimator. The measurements are fitted to a first-order polynomial with the slope fixed to unity. The fit residuals, shown in the bottom panel, are consistent with a spatial resolution better than 40 microns. During the run, the module is flushed with pure CO2 and operates at 2.925 kV. Hits from the strips of the second gas volume from the top and in the vicinity of the X-ray beam are shown. The sTGC module under test is read out with VMM3a ASICs mounted on strip front-end boards (sFEB) rev. 2.1. The VMM3a is configured with neighbour triggering enabled, a gain of 1.0 mV/fC and an integration time of 50 ns. The voltage threshold of the electronic channels is tuned on a channel-by-channel basis to be 20 mV above the voltage baseline. Charge clusters are defined as a collection of contiguous strip hits read out within a time window of 3 BCID (75 ns). |
|
|
Fig. 8: Pictures of the equipment used for the X-ray test.
Top left: X-ray gun inserted in the holder piece and the base plate. Top right: Drawing of the X-ray gun holder. Bottom left: Source plate for the NSW alignment system. Bottom right: Brass collimator inserted in the tip of the gun. The tip of the gun is screwed in the gun body. |
|
|
Fig. 9: Photograph of the interlocked test area used to carry out X-ray measurements.
|
|
|
Fig. 10: Photograph of the setup used to measure the intrinsic spatial resolution of the technique using a micrometric screw.
A square angle is glued on the surface of the wedge to guide the holder piece in a perpendicular direction with respect to the strips. The micrometric screw is also glued on the wedge and is used to push the holder by a known distance. |
|
sTGC Performance
Public Talks at conferences
Public Plots
| Fig. 2: Inclusive sTGC residual The reference track is built from all four hits in the sTGC quadruplet. |  |
| Fig. 2: Exclusive sTGC residual The reference track is built from three hits in the sTGC quadruplet, excluding the first hit for which the residual is computed. |  |
| Fig. 2: sTGC residual The reference track is built from hits in three pixel layers before and after the sTGC quadruplet. |  |
| Fig. 3: Intrinsic strip spatial resolution measured at the H8 beam line, without the near-neighbour logic In-situ measurement of the sTGC strip spatial resolution as a function of the applied high-voltage using a low-rate muon beam in the H8 beam-test area at CERN using three layers of a QS3P module during 2018. |  |
| Fig. 4: Charge distribution from a sTGC pad at (a) the H8 beam line for the QS3 module The sTGC pad charge distribution (PDO) for different values of applied high-voltage using a low-rate muon beam in the H8 beam-test area at CERN with a QS3P detector during 2018. |  |
| Fig. 5: Charge distribution from a sTGC pad at the GIF++ facility for the QL1 module The sTGC pad charge PDO distribution (normalised) for different background rates, as measured in GIF++ using a muon beam in the presence of high rate photon background in GIF++ at CERN with a QL1 detector during 2018. |  |
sTGC Results from Cosmic Rays Data
| Fig. 6: Data for a QL2C module tested with cosmic rays at McGill University. During the test, the module is placed horizontally between two layers of plastic scintillator detectors that trigger on the passage of muons. Data acquisition is triggered by the coincidence of signals from the two scintillator layers. The total data taking time is approximately one day. The module is read out with VMM3 ASICs fitted on prototype front-end boards. Exclusive \emph{test tracks} are reconstructed using all wire and strip hits of the tested module excluding hits from the tested layer. The efficiency of a strip is defined as the fraction of test tracks pointing at the strip that are accompagnied with a hit on the strip. The large drops in efficiency are explained by the five 7-mm wide wire supports which lay parallel to the strip inside the gas volume. Likewise the moderate drops in efficiency between the wire supports are explained by the presence of button supports. |  |
| Fig. 7: Data for a QL2C module tested with cosmic rays at McGill University. During the test, the module is placed horizontally between two layers of plastic scintillator detectors that trigger on the passage of muons. Data acquisition is triggered by the coincidence of signals from the two scintillator layers. The total data taking time is approximately one day. The module is read out with VMM3 ASICs fitted on prototype front-end boards. The surface of the gas volume is divided in test bins. All test bins have the same dimensions except for 5 rows of bins whose height is tuned to fully cover the wire supports. Exclusive \emph{test tracks} are reconstructed using all wire and strip hits of the tested module excluding hits from the tested layer. The efficiency associated to a test bin is defined as the fraction of test tracks pointing at the bin that are accompagnied with a strip hit in the vincinity of the bin. The narrow inneficient regions correspond to the five 7-mm wide wire supports which lie parallel to the strip inside the gas volume. |  |
Fig. 8: Data for a QL2C module read out with VMM3 ASICs
fitted on prototype front-end boards. The noise is the RMS of the
baseline voltage of the strip channels measured at the monitor
output of the VMM3. The oscilloscope is setup with a time window of
|
 |
| Fig. 9: Data for a QL2C module tested with cosmic rays at McGill University. During the test, the module is placed horizontally between two layers of plastic scintillator detectors that trigger on the passage of muons. Data acquisition is triggered by the coincidence of signals from the two scintillator layers. The total data taking time is approximately one day. The module is read out with VMM3 ASICs fitted on prototype front-end boards.. |  |
| Fig. 10: Data for a QL2C module tested with cosmic rays at McGill University. During the test, the module is placed horizontally between two layers of plastic scintillator detectors that trigger on the passage of muons. Data acquisition is triggered by the coincidence of signals from the two scintillator layers. The total data taking time is approximately one day. The module is read out with VMM3 ASICs fitted on prototype front-end boards. Neighbour triggered hits are included in the histogram. |  |
| Fig. 11: Data for a QL2C module tested with cosmic rays at McGill University. During the test, the module is placed horizontally between two layers of plastic scintillator detectors that trigger on the passage of muons. Data acquisition is triggered by the coincidence of signals from the two scintillator layers. The total data taking time is approximately one day. The module is read out with VMM3 ASICs fitted on prototype front-end boards. |  |
| Fig. 12: Data for a QL2C module tested with cosmic rays at McGill University. During the test, the module is placed horizontally between two layers of plastic scintillator detectors that trigger on the passage of muons. Data acquisition is triggered by the coincidence of signals from the two scintillator layers. The total data taking time is approximately one day. The module is read out with VMM3 ASICs fitted on prototype front-end boards. Charge clusters are made up of hits from contiguous cathode strips of a layer. Due to neighbour triggering, the strip multiplicity is typically larger or equal to 3. Neighbour triggered hits with a peak value below baseline are nevertheless rejected which can reduce the multiplicity. Charge clusters on the edges of a strip board can also have a multiplicity lower than 3. |  |
| Fig. 13: Data for a QL2C module tested with cosmic rays at McGill University. During the test, the module is placed horizontally between two layers of plastic scintillator detectors that trigger on the passage of muons. Data acquisition is triggered by the coincidence of signals from the two scintillator layers. The total data taking time is approximately one day. The module is read out with VMM3 ASICs fitted on prototype front-end boards. Charge clusters are made up of hits from contiguous cathode strips of a layer. The total charge of a cluster is the sum of the peak values of the strip hits making up the cluster after pedestal subtraction. |  |
SIMULATIONS
SIMULATIONS - Micromegas Digitization and Reconstruction
| Fig. 1: Micromegas Cluster Charge Vs incident angle (June 2021) Mean Micromegas cluster charge vs. the incident angle $\theta$ from the simulation with the neighbor logic of the VMM being on and off. The cluster is reconstructed using the centroid method with a maximum of one consecutive missing strip. The Digitization was using a gas gain of 8000 and a VMM threshold of 15000 electrons (\SI{2.4}{\femto\coulomb}) was applied on all strips. The charge sharing between the strips was set to \num{0.3} to the next and \num{0.09} for the next to next neighbor strip. In the neighbor logic on mode strips next to a strip over threshold are read out independent of them being above threshold or not. The strip charge is required to be higher then \SI{0.4}{\femto\coulomb} for strips to be accepted in the analysis. |  |
|
Fig. 2: Micromegas Cluster Width Vs angle (June 2021)
Mean Micromegas cluster width vs. the incident angle $\theta$ from the simulation with the neighbor logic of the VMM being on and off. The cluster is reconstructed using the centroid method with a maximum of one consecutive missing strip. The Digitization was using a gas gain of 8000 and the VMM threshold indicated in the plot was applied to each strip. A charge sharing of \num{0.3} was applied for the next neighbor strip and the squared value is used for the next to next neighbor strip. In the neighbor logic on mode strips next to a strip over threshold are read out independent of them being above threshold or not. The strip charge is required to be higher then \SI{0.4}{\femto\coulomb} for strips to be accepted in the analysis. |  |
|
Fig. 3.1: Micromegas Cluster Width Vs angle - (June 2021)
Mean Micromegas cluster width vs. the incident angle $\theta$ from the simulation for different configurations of the VMM neighbor logic and threshold applied to each strip. The charge sharing to the next strip is indicated in the plot, for the next to next strip the squared value is used. The cluster is reconstructed using the centroid method with a maximum of one consecutive missing strip. The Digitization was using a gas gain of 8000 and a VMM threshold of 15000 electrons (\SI{2.4}{\femto\coulomb}) was applied to each strip. In the neighbor logic on mode strips next to a strip over threshold are read out independent of them being above threshold or not. The strip charge is required to be higher then \SI{0.4}{\femto\coulomb} for strips to be accepted in the analysis. |  |
|
Fig. 3.2: Micromegas Cluster Width Vs angle - cont. (June 2021)
Mean Micromegas cluster width vs. the incident angle $\theta$ from the simulation for different configurations of the VMM neighbor logic and threshold applied to each strip. The charge sharing to the next strip is indicated in the plot, for the next to next strip the squared value is used. The cluster is reconstructed using the centroid method with a maximum of one consecutive missing strip. The Digitization was using a gas gain of 8000 and a VMM threshold of 15000 electrons (\SI{2.4}{\femto\coulomb}) was applied to each strip. In the neighbor logic on mode strips next to a strip over threshold are read out independent of them being above threshold or not. The strip charge is required to be higher then \SI{0.4}{\femto\coulomb} for strips to be accepted in the analysis. |  |
|
Fig. 3.3: Micromegas Cluster Width Vs angle - cont. (June 2021)
Mean Micromegas cluster width vs. the incident angle $\theta$ from the simulation for different configurations of the VMM neighbor logic and threshold applied to each strip. The charge sharing to the next strip is indicated in the plot, for the next to next strip the squared value is used. The cluster is reconstructed using the centroid method with a maximum of one consecutive missing strip. The Digitization was using a gas gain of 8000 and a VMM threshold of 15000 electrons (\SI{2.4}{\femto\coulomb}) was applied to each strip. In the neighbor logic on mode strips next to a strip over threshold are read out independent of them being above threshold or not. The strip charge is required to be higher then \SI{0.4}{\femto\coulomb} for strips to be accepted in the analysis. |  |
|
Fig. 3.4: Micromegas Cluster Width Vs angle - cont. (June 2021)
Mean Micromegas cluster width vs. the incident angle $\theta$ from the simulation for different configurations of the VMM neighbor logic and threshold applied to each strip. The charge sharing to the next strip is indicated in the plot, for the next to next strip the squared value is used. The cluster is reconstructed using the centroid method with a maximum of one consecutive missing strip. The Digitization was using a gas gain of 8000 and a VMM threshold of 15000 electrons (\SI{2.4}{\femto\coulomb}) was applied to each strip. In the neighbor logic on mode strips next to a strip over threshold are read out independent of them being above threshold or not. The strip charge is required to be higher then \SI{0.4}{\femto\coulomb} for strips to be accepted in the analysis. |  |
|
Fig. 4: Drift time of the individual strips of a MM centroid cluster. (June 2021)
From the width of the drift gap of \SI{5}{\mm} and the drift velocity of \SI{48}{\micro\m\per\ns} the maximal drift time is expected to be in the order of \SI{100}{\ns}. The Digitization was using a gas gain of 8000 and the VMM threshold indicated in the plot was applied to each strip. In the neighbor logic on mode strips next to a strip over threshold are read out independent of them being above threshold or not. A charge sharing of \num{0.3} was applied for the next neighbor strip and the squared value is used for the next to next neighbor strip. |  |
|
Fig. 5: Verification of the Charge Sharing between strips in MM (June 2021)
Charge ratio of the first and second strip of a cluster. The cluster is reconstructed using the uTPC method. The threshold is 15ke applied on all channels and the neighbor logic is not enabled. The charge sharing indicated in the plot is applied towards the next neighbor and the squared value is applied to the next to next neighbor. |  |
|
Fig. 6.1: MM position Resolution with default charge sharing Vs eta (June 2021)
Truth resolution of the even MM eta layers for different clusterization methods in a sample with the nominal charge sharing of 0.3 to the next and 0.09 to the next to next neighbor and a threshold of 15 ke.No time smearing is applied. The resolution is extracted using a bi-Gaussian fit and weighting the witdth of both by the amplitude. The neighbor logic is off. The centroid clusterization is combining neighboring strips allowing holes of one strip. The uTPC clusterization uses the time information available for each strip to find straight tracks through the gas gap. For the filtering, a Hough transformation is used. The cluster position is determined by a straight line fit of the primary ionisations in the gas gap, evaluated at the center of the gas gap. |  |
|
Fig. 6.2: MM position Resolution with default charge sharing Vs angle (June 2021)
Truth resolution of the even MM eta layers for different clusterization methods in a sample with the nominal charge sharing of 0.3 to the next and 0.09 to the next to next neighbor and a threshold of 15 ke.No time smearing is applied. The resolution is extracted using a bi-Gaussian fit and weighting the witdth of both by the amplitude. The neighbor logic is off. The centroid clusterization is combining neighboring strips allowing holes of one strip. The uTPC clusterization uses the time information available for each strip to find straight tracks through the gas gap. For the filtering, a Hough transformation is used. The cluster position is determined by a straight line fit of the primary ionisations in the gas gap, evaluated at the center of the gas gap. |  |
|
Fig. 7.1: MM Reconstruction with different Charge Sharing Settings and Threshold at 15 ke (June 2021)
Truth resolution of the even MM eta layers for different clusterization methods in samples with different charge sharing values and thresholds. No time smearing is applied. The charge sharing indicated in the plot is used for the next neighbor and the squared values for the next to next neighbor. The resolution is extracted using a bi-Gaussian fit and weighting the width of both by the amplitude. The neighbor logic is off. The centroid clusterization is combining neighboring strips allowing holes of one strip. The uTPC clusterization uses the time information available for each strip to find straight tracks through the gas gap. For the filtering, a Hough transformation is used. The cluster position is determined by a straight line fit of the primary ionisations in the gas gap, evaluated at the center of the gas gap. |  |
|
Fig. 7.2: MM Reconstruction with different Charge Sharing Settings and Threshold at 25 ke (June 2021)
Truth resolution of the even MM eta layers for different clusterization methods in samples with different charge sharing values and thresholds. No time smearing is applied. The charge sharing indicated in the plot is used for the next neighbor and the squared values for the next to next neighbor. The resolution is extracted using a bi-Gaussian fit and weighting the width of both by the amplitude. The neighbor logic is off. The centroid clusterization is combining neighboring strips allowing holes of one strip. The uTPC clusterization uses the time information available for each strip to find straight tracks through the gas gap. For the filtering, a Hough transformation is used. The cluster position is determined by a straight line fit of the primary ionisations in the gas gap, evaluated at the center of the gas gap. |  |
|
Fig. 8: MM Cluster reconstruction Efficiency Vs HV (June 2021)
Cluster reconstruction efficiency as a function of high voltage. The clusters were reconstructed using the centroid. The change of HV is implemented in the Digitization by scaling the amplification according to cluster charge dependence from cosmic data. The data curve is integrated over all angles present in the cosmic ray test stand.}. |  |
SIMULATIONS - Background / OVERLAY
|
Fig. 1.1: NSW Overlay - Hit rates - log scale (June 2021)
Simulated hit rate in the NSW including contributions from in and out of time pileup in the form of minbias and cavern background. During the simulation, the bunch spacing is set to 25 ns, the average number of interactions per bunch crossing to $\langle \mu \rangle$ = 40 and the luminosity to $\mathcal{L} = 1.74 \times 10^{34}$~cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. . |  |
|
Fig. 1.2: NSW Overlay Hit rates - linear scale (June 2021)
Simulated hit rate in the NSW including contributions from in and out of time pileup in the form of minbias and cavern background. During the simulation, the bunch spacing is set to 25 ns, the average number of interactions per bunch crossing to $\langle \mu \rangle$ = 40 and the luminosity to $\mathcal{L} = 1.74 \times 10^{34}$~cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. . |  |
|
Fig. 2: NSW Overlay - MM and sTGC Strip rates (June 2021)
Simulated hit rate per strip in the NSW including contributions from in and out of time pileup in the form of minbias and cavern background. During the simulation, the bunch spacing is set to 25 ns, the average number of interactions per bunch crossing to $\langle \mu \rangle$ = 40 and the luminosity to $\mathcal{L} = 1.74 \times 10^{34}$~cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. The sTGC strip width is 3.2 mm and the the MM strips width is defined as 0.4375~mm, the average strip width between large (0.450~mm) and small (0.425~mm) sectors. |  |
Combined Results and Plots
| Fig. 1: Here goes the plot title/short content description and the upload date And here goes the detailed and background information |  |
Electronics
| Fig. 1: Performance of sTGC serializer: "Eye" diagram The sTGC trigger data serializer (TDS) ASIC chip is responsible for the preparation of trigger data for both pads and strips with additional task of serializing data for transmission to the circuits on the rim of the NSW detector. The serializer is realized in IBM 130 nm CMOS technology. It is adapted from the CERN GBT serializer, with changed architecture from loading 120 bits at 40 MHz to loading 30 bits in parallel at 160 MHz. The serial output is at 4.8 Gbps. The eye diagram is evaluated in a 12.5 GHz bandwidth, 50 GS/s oscilloscope with a PRBS-31 pattern. The height of the eye is measured to be about 540 mV, and the width is about 180.3 ps. Jitter analysis shows that the total jitter at a bit-error-ratio (BER) of 1E-12 is 49.7 ps. A BER test with embedded PRBS checker inside a Xilinx 7 FPGA was also performed. An error free running of three days has been achieved, which corresponds to a BER less than 1 E-15. |  |
Major updates:
-- Main.Stephanie.Zimmermann - 2014-10-31 Responsible: BeateHeinemann
Subject: public
- Cluster_charge_meanONOFF.pdf: Mean Micromegas cluster charge vs the incident angle
- Cluster_widthONOFF.pdf: Cluster width Vs angle
- Cluster_width_vs_HV.pdf: Cluster width Vs HV
- Mean_cluster_charge_vs_HV.pdf: Cluster charge Vs HV
- Efficiency_Layer6.pdf: Efficiency map Layer 6
- Efficiency_vs_HV.pdf: Efficiency Vs HV
- Cluster_charge_meanONOFF.png: Mean Micromegas cluster charge vs the incident angle
- Cluster_widthONOFF.png: Cluster width Vs angle
- Cluster_width_vs_HV.png: Cluster width Vs HV
- Mean_cluster_charge_vs_HV.png: Cluster charge Vs HV
- Efficiency_Layer6.png: Efficiency map Layer 6
- Efficiency_vs_HV.png: Efficiency Vs HV
- ql2c7-eff-strips-1D.pdf: sTGC strips Efficiency
- singlePointRes_clusterChargeNLOnOff_clusterChargeVsTheta.pdf: MM clusterChargeNLOnOff_clusterChargeVsTheta
- singlePointRes_clusterChargeNLOnOff_clusterChargeVsTheta.pdf: MM clusterChargeNLOnOff_clusterChargeVsTheta
| I | Attachment | History | Action | Size | Date | Who | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 pdf |
A16_resolution_all.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.6 K | 2021-06-27 - 14:47 | MauroIodice | MM Time resolution from BB5 Cosmics data |
| pdf |
A16_resolution_layers_v1.pdf | r1 | manage | 19.5 K | 2021-06-27 - 14:47 | MauroIodice | MM Time resolution from BB5 Cosmics data |
| pdf |
Channel_RMS_MM.pdf | r1 | manage | 243.7 K | 2021-06-27 - 13:26 | MauroIodice | Baseline RMS for MM Channels for eta/stereo small/large wedges |
| pdf |
Channel_RMS_MM_LM_Eta.pdf | r1 | manage | 241.7 K | 2021-06-27 - 13:26 | MauroIodice | Baseline RMS for MM Channels for eta/stereo small/large wedges |
| pdf |
Channel_RMS_MM_LM_Stereo.pdf | r1 | manage | 243.0 K | 2021-06-27 - 13:26 | MauroIodice | Baseline RMS for MM Channels for eta/stereo small/large wedges |
| pdf |
Channel_RMS_MM_SM_Stereo.pdf | r1 | manage | 247.1 K | 2021-06-27 - 13:26 | MauroIodice | Baseline RMS for MM Channels for eta/stereo small/large wedges |
| pdf |
Cluster_charge_meanONOFF.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.9 K | 2020-12-03 - 12:38 | MauroIodice | Mean Micromegas cluster charge vs the incident angle |
| pdf |
Cluster_width.pdf | r1 | manage | 17.9 K | 2021-06-27 - 13:45 | MauroIodice | Micromegas Cluster Width (BB5 data) |
| pdf |
Cluster_widthONOFF.pdf | r1 | manage | 16.5 K | 2020-12-03 - 12:51 | MauroIodice | Cluster width Vs angle |
 png |
Cluster_widthONOFF.png | r1 | manage | 91.9 K | 2020-12-03 - 17:30 | MauroIodice | Micromegas Cluster width Vs angle |
| pdf |
Cluster_width_vs_HV.pdf | r1 | manage | 18.9 K | 2020-12-03 - 12:55 | MauroIodice | Cluster width Vs HV |
| png |
Cluster_width_vs_HV.png | r1 | manage | 149.8 K | 2020-12-03 - 17:29 | MauroIodice | Micromegas Cluster width Vs HV |
| pdf |
Efficiency_Layer6.pdf | r1 | manage | 30.5 K | 2020-12-03 - 12:56 | MauroIodice | Efficiency map Layer 6 |
| png |
Efficiency_Layer6.png | r1 | manage | 127.4 K | 2020-12-03 - 17:32 | MauroIodice | Micromegas Layer 6 Efficiency |
| pdf |
Efficiency_vs_HV.pdf | r1 | manage | 19.2 K | 2020-12-03 - 12:57 | MauroIodice | Efficiency Vs HV |
| png |
Efficiency_vs_HV.png | r1 | manage | 153.8 K | 2020-12-03 - 17:32 | MauroIodice | Micromegas Efficiency Vs HV |
| pdf |
Efficiency_vs_MMFE8_0-10deg_MEAN.pdf | r1 | manage | 20.5 K | 2021-06-27 - 14:17 | MauroIodice | MM Efficiency Vs MMFE8 threshold (from BB5 data) |
| pdf |
Efficiency_vs_MMFE8_10-20deg_MEAN.pdf | r1 | manage | 20.8 K | 2021-06-27 - 14:17 | MauroIodice | MM Efficiency Vs MMFE8 threshold (from BB5 data) |
| pdf |
Efficiency_vs_MMFE8_20-30deg_MEAN.pdf | r1 | manage | 21.0 K | 2021-06-27 - 14:17 | MauroIodice | MM Efficiency Vs MMFE8 threshold (from BB5 data) |
 jpg |
H6_hd.jpg | r1 | manage | 2521.4 K | 2015-05-20 - 17:46 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas TB photo |
| pdf |
HV_cluster_charge_mean_BB5_Average.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.0 K | 2021-06-27 - 14:23 | MauroIodice | Mean Micromegas cluster charge vs HV |
| pdf |
LM1_res.pdf | r1 | manage | 38.5 K | 2021-06-27 - 14:43 | MauroIodice | MM Spatial resolution Vs incident angle with cosmics at BB5 |
| png |
LM1_res.png | r1 | manage | 143.9 K | 2021-07-04 - 12:38 | StefanoRosati | |
| pdf |
LM2_res.pdf | r1 | manage | 38.9 K | 2021-06-27 - 14:43 | MauroIodice | MM Spatial resolution Vs incident angle with cosmics at BB5 |
| pdf |
Mean_cluster_charge_vs_HV.pdf | r1 | manage | 18.9 K | 2020-12-03 - 12:56 | MauroIodice | Cluster charge Vs HV |
| png |
Mean_cluster_charge_vs_HV.png | r1 | manage | 147.6 K | 2020-12-03 - 17:31 | MauroIodice | Micromegas cluster charge vs HV |
| pdf |
Plot_BB5_res.pdf | r1 | manage | 17.2 K | 2021-06-27 - 14:31 | MauroIodice | |
| pdf |
Plot_SM2_res.pdf | r1 | manage | 17.9 K | 2021-06-27 - 15:01 | MauroIodice | SM2 - M1 TEST BEAM Spatial Resolution |
| pdf |
SM1_res.pdf | r1 | manage | 36.7 K | 2021-06-27 - 14:43 | MauroIodice | MM Spatial resolution Vs incident angle with cosmics at BB5 |
| pdf |
SM2_res.pdf | r1 | manage | 35.4 K | 2021-06-27 - 14:43 | MauroIodice | MM Spatial resolution Vs incident angle with cosmics at BB5 |
| pdf |
Track_map_l7.pdf | r1 | manage | 29.5 K | 2021-06-27 - 13:13 | MauroIodice | MM Hit Map from BB5 cosmics data |
| pdf |
angle_10deg_aftercor.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.6 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:52 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas angular distribution for 10 degrees |
| png |
angle_10deg_aftercor.png | r1 | manage | 105.1 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
angle_20deg_aftercor.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.8 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:52 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas angular distribution for 20 degrees |
| png |
angle_20deg_aftercor.png | r1 | manage | 112.3 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
angle_30deg_aftercor.pdf | r1 | manage | 16.0 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:52 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas angular distribution for 30 degrees |
| png |
angle_30deg_aftercor.png | r1 | manage | 118.6 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
angle_40deg_aftercor.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.9 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:52 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas angular distribution for 40 degrees |
| png |
angle_40deg_aftercor.png | r1 | manage | 116.7 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
apv.pdf | r1 | manage | 28.5 K | 2015-05-20 - 17:17 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas APV integrated charge single channel example |
| png |
apv.png | r1 | manage | 126.6 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:52 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
apv_function.pdf | r1 | manage | 33.2 K | 2015-05-20 - 17:17 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas APV integrated charge single channel example |
| png |
apv_function.png | r1 | manage | 163.8 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:52 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| png |
cluster_size.png | r1 | manage | 129.6 K | 2020-04-23 - 09:50 | BenoitLefebvre | |
| pdf |
display3.pdf | r1 | manage | 16.3 K | 2015-05-20 - 17:13 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas track evt display |
| png |
display3.png | r1 | manage | 124.4 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:52 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
efficiencyScan_softwareVsBB5.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.3 K | 2021-06-27 - 12:44 | MauroIodice | MM Cluster reconstruction Efficiency Vs HV |
| png |
efficiencyScan_softwareVsBB5.png | r1 | manage | 37.5 K | 2022-05-02 - 16:33 | MauroIodice | efficiencyScan_softwareVsBB5 |
| pdf |
efficiency_tmm_pillarregions_centroid_perpendiculartracks.pdf | r1 | manage | 31.3 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:52 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas efficiency map for different regions with respect to the pillars |
| png |
efficiency_tmm_pillarregions_centroid_perpendiculartracks.png | r1 | manage | 238.0 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
efficiency_tqf_t2_centroid_30degtracks_angletext.pdf | r1 | manage | 18.6 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:52 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas efficiency map for 30 degrees inclination angle |
| png |
efficiency_tqf_t2_centroid_30degtracks_angletext.png | r1 | manage | 88.6 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
efficiency_tqf_t2_centroid_perpendiculartracks_angletext.pdf | r1 | manage | 19.5 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:52 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas efficiency map for 0 degrees inclination angle |
| png |
efficiency_tqf_t2_centroid_perpendiculartracks_angletext.png | r1 | manage | 95.3 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| png |
gamma_ageing.png | r1 | manage | 61.3 K | 2015-07-01 - 18:56 | MarcoVanadia | Micromegas ageing studies with gamma-rays |
| png |
intrinsic_sp.png | r1 | manage | 137.1 K | 2020-05-14 - 11:09 | DennisPudzha | |
| png |
mm_single_plane_spatial_resolution.png | r1 | manage | 19.1 K | 2014-11-18 - 01:37 | OliverStelzerChilton | MM single plane spatial resolution vs incident angle |
| png |
mmsw_precision_coordinate.png | r1 | manage | 36.3 K | 2014-11-18 - 01:39 | OliverStelzerChilton | MMSW precision coordinate resolution |
| png |
mmsw_second_coordinate.png | r1 | manage | 41.1 K | 2014-11-18 - 01:39 | OliverStelzerChilton | MMSW second coordinate resolution |
| png |
neutron_ageing.png | r1 | manage | 95.1 K | 2015-07-01 - 18:52 | MarcoVanadia | Micromegas ageing studies with neutrons |
| png |
overlayed_HitRate.png | r1 | manage | 13.4 K | 2021-06-27 - 12:52 | MauroIodice | NSW Overlay - simulated hit rates |
| png |
overlayed_HitRate_noLog.png | r1 | manage | 16.3 K | 2021-06-27 - 12:52 | MauroIodice | NSW Overlay - simulated hit rates |
| png |
overlayed_StripRate.png | r1 | manage | 14.7 K | 2021-06-27 - 12:54 | MauroIodice | NSW Overlay - Simulated strip rates |
| png |
pdo_1.png | r1 | manage | 193.6 K | 2020-05-14 - 11:09 | DennisPudzha | |
| png |
pdo_2.png | r1 | manage | 314.2 K | 2020-05-14 - 11:09 | DennisPudzha | |
| pdf |
pdo_all.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.1 K | 2020-04-23 - 09:40 | BenoitLefebvre | |
| png |
pdo_all.png | r1 | manage | 91.0 K | 2020-04-23 - 09:44 | BenoitLefebvre | |
| pdf |
phiError.pdf | r1 | manage | 38.9 K | 2015-05-21 - 10:47 | KonstantinosNtekas | MC expectation for second coordinate resolution with stereo strips |
| png |
phiError.png | r1 | manage | 104.9 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
ql2c7-eff-strips-1D.pdf | r1 | manage | 16.8 K | 2020-12-03 - 18:45 | MauroIodice | sTGC strips Efficiency |
| png |
ql2c7-eff-strips-1D.png | r1 | manage | 102.3 K | 2020-12-03 - 18:45 | MauroIodice | sTGC strips Efficiency |
| pdf |
ql2c7-eff-strips-2D.pdf | r1 | manage | 17.7 K | 2020-12-03 - 18:54 | MauroIodice | sTGC efficiency map |
| png |
ql2c7-eff-strips-2D.png | r1 | manage | 105.1 K | 2020-12-03 - 18:54 | MauroIodice | sTGC efficiency map |
| pdf |
ql2c7-noise-strips-1D.pdf | r1 | manage | 17.2 K | 2020-12-03 - 18:54 | MauroIodice | sTGC ql2c7 strip noise |
| png |
ql2c7-noise-strips-1D.png | r1 | manage | 102.8 K | 2020-12-03 - 18:54 | MauroIodice | sTGC ql2c7 strip noise |
| pdf |
ql2c7-noise-strips-2D.pdf | r1 | manage | 17.0 K | 2020-12-03 - 18:55 | MauroIodice | sTGC ql2c7 noise map |
| png |
ql2c7-noise-strips-2D.png | r1 | manage | 107.3 K | 2020-12-03 - 18:55 | MauroIodice | sTGC ql2c7 noise map |
| pdf |
ql2c7-pdo-pads.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.5 K | 2020-12-03 - 18:56 | MauroIodice | sTGC ql2c7 PDO |
| png |
ql2c7-pdo-pads.png | r1 | manage | 104.3 K | 2020-12-03 - 18:56 | MauroIodice | sTGC ql2c7 PDO |
| pdf |
ql2c7-pdo-strips.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.5 K | 2020-12-03 - 18:56 | MauroIodice | sTGC ql2c7 PDO |
| png |
ql2c7-pdo-strips.png | r1 | manage | 110.1 K | 2020-12-03 - 18:56 | MauroIodice | sTGC ql2c7 PDO |
| pdf |
ql2c7-pdo-wires.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.3 K | 2020-12-03 - 18:56 | MauroIodice | sTGC ql2c7 PDO |
| png |
ql2c7-pdo-wires.png | r1 | manage | 96.3 K | 2020-12-03 - 18:56 | MauroIodice | sTGC ql2c7 PDO |
| pdf |
ql2c7-raw-cluster-size.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.3 K | 2020-12-03 - 18:57 | MauroIodice | sTGC ql2c7 cluster size |
| png |
ql2c7-raw-cluster-size.png | r1 | manage | 114.0 K | 2020-12-03 - 18:57 | MauroIodice | sTGC ql2c7 cluster size |
| pdf |
ql2c7-sum-pdo-strips.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.6 K | 2020-12-03 - 18:58 | MauroIodice | sTGC ql2c7 strips cluster PDO |
| png |
ql2c7-sum-pdo-strips.png | r1 | manage | 110.1 K | 2020-12-03 - 18:58 | MauroIodice | sTGC ql2c7 strips cluster PDO |
| pdf |
reco_angle_beforeaftercor_errors.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.7 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:52 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas reconstructed angle before and after the utpc refinement |
| png |
reco_angle_beforeaftercor_errors.png | r1 | manage | 129.5 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
residuals_t2_t4_H4.pdf | r1 | manage | 18.1 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:52 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas resolution for T chamber type |
| png |
residuals_t2_t4_H4.png | r1 | manage | 168.7 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| png |
sTGC_residual_pixel.png | r1 | manage | 45.5 K | 2014-11-19 - 19:57 | OliverStelzerChilton | sTGC residual with respect to a pixel track |
| png |
sTGC_serializer_performance.png | r1 | manage | 271.4 K | 2014-12-01 - 19:50 | OliverStelzerChilton | sTGC serializer performance |
| png |
sTGC_standalone_residuals_exc.png | r1 | manage | 131.6 K | 2014-11-19 - 01:26 | OliverStelzerChilton | sTGC standalone exclusive resolution |
| png |
sTGC_standalone_residuals_inc.png | r1 | manage | 116.8 K | 2014-11-19 - 01:26 | OliverStelzerChilton | sTGC standalone inclusive resolution |
| png |
screw.png | r1 | manage | 377.4 K | 2020-04-23 - 10:52 | BenoitLefebvre | |
| jpg |
screw_setup.jpg | r1 | manage | 62.5 K | 2020-04-23 - 10:56 | BenoitLefebvre | |
| pdf |
singlePointRes_clusterChargeNLOnOff_clusterChargeVsTheta.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.4 K | 2021-06-27 - 11:41 | MauroIodice | MM clusterChargeNLOnOff_clusterChargeVsTheta |
| png |
singlePointRes_clusterChargeNLOnOff_clusterChargeVsTheta.png | r1 | manage | 61.5 K | 2021-07-04 - 14:18 | StefanoRosati | |
| pdf |
singlePointRes_thesisCTScanNLOff_clusterWidthVsTheta.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.2 K | 2021-06-27 - 12:07 | MauroIodice | |
| png |
singlePointRes_thesisCTScanNLOff_clusterWidthVsTheta.png | r1 | manage | 81.7 K | 2021-07-04 - 14:18 | StefanoRosati | |
| pdf |
singlePointRes_thesisCTScanNLOffhighThresh_clusterWidthVsTheta.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.2 K | 2021-06-27 - 12:07 | MauroIodice | |
| png |
singlePointRes_thesisCTScanNLOffhighThresh_clusterWidthVsTheta.png | r1 | manage | 82.1 K | 2021-07-04 - 14:18 | StefanoRosati | |
| pdf |
singlePointRes_thesisCTScanNLOn_clusterWidthVsTheta.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.2 K | 2021-06-27 - 12:07 | MauroIodice | |
| png |
singlePointRes_thesisCTScanNLOn_clusterWidthVsTheta.png | r1 | manage | 81.5 K | 2021-07-04 - 14:40 | StefanoRosati | |
| pdf |
singlePointRes_thesisCTScanNLOnhighThresh_clusterWidthVsTheta.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.2 K | 2021-06-27 - 12:07 | MauroIodice | |
| png |
singlePointRes_thesisCTScanNLOnhighThresh_clusterWidthVsTheta.png | r1 | manage | 82.0 K | 2021-07-04 - 14:18 | StefanoRosati | |
| pdf |
singlePointRes_thesisResolutionCT0.3Th15keNLOff_weightedResolutionTruthEvenGG_eta.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.8 K | 2021-06-27 - 12:30 | MauroIodice | |
| png |
singlePointRes_thesisResolutionCT0.3Th15keNLOff_weightedResolutionTruthEvenGG_eta.png | r1 | manage | 64.2 K | 2021-07-04 - 14:18 | StefanoRosati | |
| pdf |
singlePointRes_thesisResolutionCT0.3Th15keNLOff_weightedResolutionTruthEvenGG_theta.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.6 K | 2021-06-27 - 12:30 | MauroIodice | |
| png |
singlePointRes_thesisResolutionCT0.3Th15keNLOff_weightedResolutionTruthEvenGG_theta.png | r1 | manage | 64.9 K | 2021-07-04 - 14:18 | StefanoRosati | |
| pdf |
singlePointRes_thesisThresholdNLScan_clusterWidthVsTheta.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.5 K | 2021-06-27 - 11:57 | MauroIodice | MM Cluster size Vs Angle |
| png |
singlePointRes_thesisThresholdNLScan_clusterWidthVsTheta.png | r1 | manage | 81.9 K | 2021-07-04 - 14:18 | StefanoRosati | |
| pdf |
singlePointRes_thesisThresholdNLScan_driftTime.pdf | r1 | manage | 28.7 K | 2021-06-27 - 12:16 | MauroIodice | MM Simulation Drift time |
| png |
singlePointRes_thesisThresholdNLScan_driftTime.png | r1 | manage | 104.6 K | 2021-07-04 - 14:18 | StefanoRosati | |
| pdf |
singlePointRes_thesisuTPCCTTH15kScan_weightedResolutionTruthEvenGG_theta.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.2 K | 2021-06-27 - 12:41 | MauroIodice | MM POsition resolution with different charge sharing and different thresholds |
| png |
singlePointRes_thesisuTPCCTTH15kScan_weightedResolutionTruthEvenGG_theta.png | r1 | manage | 76.8 K | 2021-07-04 - 14:18 | StefanoRosati | |
| pdf |
singlePointRes_thesisuTPCCTTH15kScanonlyuTPC_chargeRatioFirstHit.pdf | r1 | manage | 27.0 K | 2021-06-27 - 12:27 | MauroIodice | Verification of strips charge sharing in MM (Simul) |
| png |
singlePointRes_thesisuTPCCTTH15kScanonlyuTPC_chargeRatioFirstHit.png | r1 | manage | 15.7 K | 2022-05-02 - 16:42 | MauroIodice | charge Ratio First Hit |
| pdf |
singlePointRes_thesisuTPCCTTH25kScan_weightedResolutionTruthEvenGG_theta.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.1 K | 2021-06-27 - 12:41 | MauroIodice | MM POsition resolution with different charge sharing and different thresholds |
| png |
singlePointRes_thesisuTPCCTTH25kScan_weightedResolutionTruthEvenGG_theta.png | r1 | manage | 75.9 K | 2021-07-04 - 14:18 | StefanoRosati | |
| pdf |
spatial_resolution_mmsw1_layer1layer2.pdf | r1 | manage | 18.3 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:52 | KonstantinosNtekas | MMSW precision coordinate resolution (layer1-layer2) |
| png |
spatial_resolution_mmsw1_layer1layer2.png | r1 | manage | 154.6 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
spatial_resolution_mmsw1_layer1layer34.pdf | r1 | manage | 18.3 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:54 | KonstantinosNtekas | MMSW precision coordinate resolution using the stereo strips(layer1-layer34) |
| png |
spatial_resolution_mmsw1_layer1layer34.png | r1 | manage | 151.1 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
spatial_resolution_mmsw1_layer2layer34.pdf | r1 | manage | 18.7 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:54 | KonstantinosNtekas | MMSW precision coordinate resolution using the stereo strips (layer2-layer34) |
| png |
spatial_resolution_mmsw1_layer2layer34.png | r1 | manage | 162.3 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
spatial_resolution_mmsw1_layer34ytmm6y.pdf | r1 | manage | 18.8 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:54 | KonstantinosNtekas | MMSW second coordinate resolution using the stereo strips |
| png |
spatial_resolution_mmsw1_layer34ytmm6y.png | r1 | manage | 160.3 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
spatial_resolution_tmm_tmb_x.pdf | r1 | manage | 18.0 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:54 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas resolution for Tmm chamber type (X readout) |
| png |
spatial_resolution_tmm_tmb_x.png | r1 | manage | 172.4 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
spatial_resolution_tmm_tmb_y.pdf | r1 | manage | 17.5 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:54 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas resolution for Tmm chamber type (Y readout) |
| png |
spatial_resolution_tmm_tmb_y.png | r1 | manage | 162.5 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
spatial_resolution_utpc_beforeaftercor_atlasnsw.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.5 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:54 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas resolution for T chamber type with utpc before and after the refinement of the method |
| png |
spatial_resolution_utpc_beforeaftercor_atlasnsw.png | r1 | manage | 110.0 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| png |
sum_pdo.png | r1 | manage | 87.2 K | 2020-04-23 - 10:09 | BenoitLefebvre | |
| jpg |
test_area.jpg | r1 | manage | 103.2 K | 2020-04-23 - 10:55 | BenoitLefebvre | |
| pdf |
tmm2_pillars_colz.pdf | r1 | manage | 261.6 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:54 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas efficiency map from 2d hit reconstruction (col1) |
| png |
tmm2_pillars_colz.png | r1 | manage | 660.0 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
tmm2_pillars_colz3.pdf | r1 | manage | 816.1 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:54 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas efficiency map from 2d hit reconstruction (col2) |
| png |
tmm2_pillars_colz3.png | r1 | manage | 1359.7 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:45 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
tmm2_pillars_colz_log_newaxes.pdf | r1 | manage | 1273.0 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:54 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas efficiency map from 2d hit reconstruction (col3) |
| png |
tmm2_pillars_colz_log_newaxes.png | r1 | manage | 1273.8 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
tmm2_pillars_scatter.pdf | r1 | manage | 843.1 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:55 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas efficiency map from 2d hit reconstruction (scatterplot) |
| pdf |
tmm_pillarseffect_centroid_perpendiculartracks_aligned.pdf | r1 | manage | 473.1 K | 2015-05-20 - 16:54 | KonstantinosNtekas | Micromegas effect of the pillars (bias) on the hit reconstruction |
| png |
tmm_pillarseffect_centroid_perpendiculartracks_aligned.png | r1 | manage | 346.4 K | 2015-05-21 - 18:27 | KonstantinosNtekas | |
| pdf |
uTPCTimeCorrectedCoreCentroid.pdf | r1 | manage | 13.9 K | 2021-06-27 - 15:06 | MauroIodice | SM2 M1 TEST BEAM Spatial Resolution with uTPC |
| pdf |
uTPCTimeCorrectedWeightedCentroid.pdf | r1 | manage | 13.9 K | 2021-06-27 - 15:06 | MauroIodice | SM2 M1 TEST BEAM Spatial Resolution with uTPC |
| png |
xray_ageing.png | r1 | manage | 80.2 K | 2015-07-01 - 18:43 | MarcoVanadia | Micromegas ageing studies with x-rays |
| jpg |
xray_equipment.jpg | r1 | manage | 352.4 K | 2020-04-23 - 10:55 | BenoitLefebvre | |
| png |
ypos_collimator.png | r1 | manage | 233.7 K | 2020-04-23 - 10:52 | BenoitLefebvre | |
| png |
ypos_no_collimator.png | r1 | manage | 301.3 K | 2020-04-23 - 10:14 | BenoitLefebvre | |
| png |
yrel_no_collimator.png | r1 | manage | 136.2 K | 2020-04-23 - 10:40 | BenoitLefebvre |
Topic revision: r31 - 2022-05-02 - MauroIodice
ATLAS 
Internal TWiki
Changes
Notifications
RSS Feed
Account 
Copyright &© 2008-2023 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. or Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? use Discourse or Send feedback