Proton Calorimetry/Meetings/2022/06/22: Difference between revisions
SaadShaikh (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
SaadShaikh (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
**White sheets produce poor results as in previous beam test – excellent fit results with clear sheets (after adjustment of WET of each sheet by approx. 0.1mm). | **White sheets produce poor results as in previous beam test – excellent fit results with clear sheets (after adjustment of WET of each sheet by approx. 0.1mm). | ||
**Rev. C fits inconsistent, likely due to poor alignment of sheets with photodiodes. | **Rev. C fits inconsistent, likely due to poor alignment of sheets with photodiodes. | ||
*Will travel to Miami at the end of the week to attend PTCOG and present results. | *Will travel to Miami at the end of the week to attend PTCOG and [http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/pbt/wikiData/presentations/2022/SS220701_PTCOG.pptx present results]. | ||
**Will be on holiday after conference, returning to work on 13th July. | **Will be on holiday after conference, returning to work on 13th July. | ||
Latest revision as of 09:45, 14 July 2022
Minutes for UCL Proton Calorimetry Meetings, 22nd June
Present
Saad Shaikh, Simon Jolly, Raffaella Radogna
Saad Shaikh
- Conducted beam test at UCLH last week with rev. B and rev. C prototypes.
- Performed analysis and presented results in this presentation. Main conclusions:
- Rev. C boards could benefit from additional grounding.
- Clear sheets between 5-6 times brighter than white painted sheets.
- White sheets produce poor results as in previous beam test – excellent fit results with clear sheets (after adjustment of WET of each sheet by approx. 0.1mm).
- Rev. C fits inconsistent, likely due to poor alignment of sheets with photodiodes.
- Will travel to Miami at the end of the week to attend PTCOG and present results.
- Will be on holiday after conference, returning to work on 13th July.