Shaper study Collected runs Numerical Shaping algorithm results

Shaper study Collected runs Numerical Shaping algorithm results

Runs collected run 100 101 102 10 3 104 105 106 107 energy 100 100 run cond HV shaper 750 = 850 = 1000 No shaper 750 = 850 = 1000 = 800 = 900 Preparato sw run analizzato 104

Shaping algorithm used Time A. U. Algo details: We have been sampling the waveform@10 GHz L, G =Number of samples in In this study D t. L = D t. G= 30 ns

Shaped signal example tempo Noise?

Correlation plot among shaped and not shaped peak value Shaping does not change peak value (energy)

Unfortunately…… Large peaks in energy spectra: 1) Not all energy is conteined 2) beam spread.

But…. Noise results on run 104 Sigma=8 m. V no shaping Sigma<2 m. V after shaping

Shaper study • I’ve taken into consideration the ratio value@peak/std(noise offpeak no fit applied worst case scenario? ) • I’ve varied the values tau. G and tau. L in 1 ns step. • The study has been performed on run 104 HV=850 V and after checked on run 105 HV=1000 V

Sig/noise Peak/noise ratio vs tau. L tau. G Tau. L

Sig/noise tau. L projection Tau. L (ns)

When and what do we get at max? Sig/noise 120 Tau. G

RUN 105 140

Conclusions on noise • Best shaping Tau. L=15 ns Tau. G=40 ns. independent on PP HV. If HV=850 V S/N=120 assuming 80 Me. V energy Deposition we have 660 Ke. V noise. If HV=1000 V S/N =140 -> 570 Ke. V noise. Experimental setup has wide margins of improvements: 1) There was no shielding. 2) Environmental photons present.

Time resolution • Situation is less clear on time resolution. Two really different shaping function lead to almost the same time resolution. .

Time resolution Standard deviation = 2. 9 ns