AURA

1
AURA
In Ice Clusters 2 clusters were deployed last
year and are taking data. Is there a prospect
for Physics? What is our commitment to data
processing, analysis, calibration?

• Future Detector
• Design of a mini-GZK detector. Probably near or
  at surface.
• Is it going to happen?
• How active will UW be?
• Simulation, Hardware, concept

Next AURA deployment 4 clusters were built for
deployment this year. They told us no. Maybe
next year. Is the hardware good enough? What
is our commitment to testing, Calibration,
deployment?
2
In Ice Cluster

• AURA Inroduction
• In Ice Clusters
• Deployment geometry
• Status
• Data
• External sources
• Calibration and Hardware tests.
• Prospects for analyses

3
AURA Radio Cluster
Counting house
surface junction box
surface junction box

• Digital Radio Module (DRM) Electronics
• 4 Antennas
• 1 Antenna Calibration Unit (ACU)
• Signal conditioning and amplification happen at
  the front end, signal is digitized and triggers
  formed in DRM
• A cluster uses standard IceCube sphere, DOM main
  board and surface cable lines.
• Use a DOM-MB as communication platform.
• Advantage get a free design for power, comms
  and time stamping.

4
Waiting to be deployed
Antenna cables
Pressure vessels
Antennas
DRM
5
RF signal

• Antennas
• Broad band dipole antennas
• Centered at 400 MHz
• Front end electronics contains
• 450 MHz Notch filter
• 200 MHz High pass filter
• 50dB amplifiers (20 dB in DRM)
• LABRADOR digitizer
• Each antenna is sampled using two 1GHz channels
  to a total of 512 samples per 256 ns (2 GSPS).

6
RF Signal

• Nyquist Vrms (4KbTRDF)1/2
• V3 mVolts RMS of 3-5 bins
• Enviroment background
• Average In Ice background up to 1 GHz
• -86 dbm 2.5 E-9 mW
• After 70 db amplification
• 16 dbm ? 35mV RMS ? 30 DAC counts rms (for 2007)
• 16 dbm ? 35mV RMS ? 60 DAC counts rms (for 2009)
  
• Maximum signal
• Dynamic Range1200 counts
• ? 1320 mV RMS ? 15 dbm ? -55dbm 3E-6 mW
  before amps (07)
• ? 720 mV RMS ? 10 dbm ? -60 dbm 1E-6 mW
  before amps (09)

2007 cluster mV/DAC is 1.1 2009 cluster mV/DAC
is 0.6
7
Deployment 2006-2007
Hole 57 scissors 2nd deployment, Shallow 4
Receivers, 1 Transmitters
Hole 78 rock 1st deployment, Deep 4
Receivers, 1Transmitters
Hole 47 paper 3rd Deployment, Deep 1
Transmitter
8
Triggering
Were Enough Antennas hit?
16 combinations of triggers
Band a 200-350 MHz Band b 350-500 MHz Band c
500-700 MHz Band d 600-1200 MHz
Antenna1
Antenna2
Antenna3
Antenna4
9

• The threshold on each band on each channel is
  tuned independently.

Many triggers
Trigger rate
No triggers
Soft threshold
Strong threshold
DAC
10
Data, Offline analysis and logging
11
Data

• Data include
• Full Waveforms ? 4 channels x 512 bins 1
  channel x 256 bins RAPCal records header
• Forced trigger runs
• Real trigger runs
• Constant DAC settings
• DRM tunes it self based on a given rate parameter
  per freq band
• DAC scans ? for every bands

12
Offline analysis

• Offline analysis includes decoding the binary
  file, time ordering, Calibration, run summaries,
  FFTing, creating plots, root file and txt file
  for data analysis.
• http//wiki.icecube.wisc.edu/index.php/Aura_Data_P
  rocess_status

13
Wave Forms
Time vs. voltage
Freq spectrum
Channel1 Channel2 Channel3 Channel4

14
DAC ScanShallow vs. Deep cluster DACs
A Shallow cluster channel
A Deep channel cluster
15
DAC scan Deep cluster
Ch 1
Ch 2
Ch 3
Ch 4
Less noise in higher freq steep slope
Band D High f
Band C
Band B
More noise in lower freq softer slope Lower DACs
Band A Low f
More noise in channels 3-4
Less noise in channels 1-2
16
The Bottom lineData taking and offline
processing

• Data is being taken, and send to the north
• Runs setting are being changed every few weeks.
• Some work is needed to tune the thresholds above
  thermal/DRM noise and get stable running

17
A closer look at data
18
Run Summary
freq
time
mV
freq
mV
time
freq
mV
time
freq
time
mV
19
Solid- Real Trigger Dashed -Forced trigger
20
Where is it coming from?
t1
t2
t3
t4
21
Data Automatic monitoring

• Rick Bruess

22
The Bottom lineA closer look at data

• Data is being taken, and send to the north
• We definitely Trigger on something
• The channels below the DRMs are noisier than
  channels above it.
• The shallow DRM is seeing more noise than the
  deep one
• We have reasons to suspect that the In Ice DRMs
  are noise source.
• Dave Besson working on WF filtering and timing
  analysis based on cross correlation.

23
Existing external sources

• RICE
• CW observed and measured by shallow cluster
• Pulse not observed,
• too weak.
• Another RICE test is scheduled.
• Other clusters ACU
• ACU too weak Development of stronger ACU
• Same ACU
• Shows signal elongation (well get back to this
  point)

Xx add ray tracing xx
24
Antenna Calibration Unit
voltage
? 15 ns ?
? 40 ns ?
time

• Single ping, or
• Repeating pings (20Mhz or less)
• Timing correspond to distances between antennas.
• Transmitter probably too weak for inter-cluster
  triggering

voltage
time
25
RICE CW

• Transmitter
• at 500 Mhz
• FFT of WF on
• shallow

26
RICE CW
Linearity plot
27
Measurements we can do with a Pulser

• Gain calibration
• Linearity
• Vertexing
• Time resolution measurement
• Ice properties

28
The bottom lineCalibration using external sources

• RICE CW tests were great
• RICE Pulser was not seen by AURA
• A test is scheduled for next week.
• Vertexing was not done on an external source
• We need a stronger pulses source.
• and then work on improving vertexing algorithms
  and WF cleaning.
• Work in KU under progress to build a stronger ACU
  able to supply CW and pulses.
• Another possibility Summer surface tests

29
Hardware studies and calibration Temperature
Clock Calibration
Nick Ballering
30
Clock correction
31
The bottom lineHardware studies and calibration

• The digitizer chip was developed and programmed
  in Hawaii.
• Some calibrations were implemented. Some were not
  implemented yet.
• The hardware needs more understanding, studies
  and calibration
• Timing
• Temperature dependence
• Gain calibration

32
The bottom line of all bottom linesIn ice
clusters

• We have 2 working clusters in ice, and data is
  coming in.
• There is a lot of work to do Data taking and
  handling, QA, calibration, WF studies,
  vertexing, timing, analyses.
• Some studies were done, but this is not the real
  thing yet
• Coincidence with IceTop
• Constant Monitoring of the data, looking and
  studying interesting events
• Strong pulser for vertexing, time resolustion and
  ice properties
• Figuring out the time distributions of events
• To get to the real thing we first need
• Tune the run point
• Understand the WF shapes
• WF feature extraction, filtering, templating
• It is a pity not to make use of the hardware

33
AURA
In Ice Clusters 2 clusters were deployed last
year and are taking data. Is there a prospect
for Physics? What is our commitment to data
processing, analysis, calibration?

• Future Detector
• Design of a mini-GZK detector. Probably near or
  at surface.
• Is it going to happen?
• How active will UW be?
• Simulation, Hardware, concept

Next AURA deployment 4 clusters were built for
deployment this year. They told us no. Maybe
next year. Is the hardware good enough? What
is our commitment to testing, Calibration,
deployment?
34

• This year deployment
• Description
• Main hardware issues
• Things left to do

35
2008 clusters

• General plan built 4 clusters
• 3 sealed DRMs (2 with low freq channels)
• 1 open DRM
• Front ends, Antennas, cables

36
Changes from last year

• Use only miteq amps
• New Power Supply Unit for the DRM
• New boards layouts
• Smarter ACU
• Low frequency channels
• Decrease distances between clusters
• Special EMI care when sealing the DRM

37
What was tested

• Link to tests results wiki
• http//wiki.icecube.wisc.edu/index.php/AURA07-08_
  Tests

• Calibration
• Testing
• Vertexing
• Concerns from last season
• DRM noise
• Elongation of signal
• Better ACU

38
Gain Measurement

• DRM 1
• Full Cluster DRM only

Gain (db)
Freq (MHz)
Freq (MHz)
39
Vetexing

• Cluster was spaced in the PSL production hall.
  Antennas 3 m high.

40
Is the DRM quiet

• Screen chamber was built inside the old dfl
• -174 dbm/Hz thermal floor translates into -108
  dbm/4Mhz.
• DRM1 is watching DRM2

Gain corrected Average FFT Spectrum
Average FFT Spectrum
Ch 2
Ch 1
Ch 2
Ch 1
Ch 4
Ch 3
Ch 3
Ch 4
Low freq
Outside screen room
Outside screen room
Freq (4MHz)
41
DRM Response
Measured signal
Sharp Pulse in t
Frequency Response
Flat response Window 200MHz-900Mhz DRM
?

42
Tests left to do

• Antenna response
• EMI survey
• More Vertexing
• Complete Cold testing and calibration

43
The Bottom lineThis years clusters

• The new clusters are working well
• EMI noise needs to be carefuly measured. Tests
  using DRMs and using calibration antennas and
  scope indicates that the DRM are quite.
• Antennas and cluster calibration in low noise
  enviroment.
• Cold testing and calibration before deployment
• ACU needs to be redesigned (too weak, too noisy)

44
AURA
In Ice Clusters 2 clusters were deployed last
year and are taking data. Is there a prospect
for Physics? What is our commitment to data
processing, analysis, calibration?

• Future Detector
• Design of a mini-GZK detector. Probably near or
  at surface.
• Is it going to happen?
• How active will UW be?
• Simulation, Hardware, concept

Next AURA deployment 4 clusters were built for
deployment this year. They told us no. Maybe
next year. Is the hardware good enough? What
is our commitment to testing, Calibration,
deployment?
45
Future plans

• Geometry
• What depth? How many stations? Spacing?
• Power? DAQ?
• Full/Partial readout?

46
Simulation

• Important for timing reconstruction.
• There are many simulations out there we need
  one here.

47
Ray Propagation time
-10 m
-100 m
-600 m
-1400 m
48
(No Transcript)
49
Ray TracingThe bottom line

• Simulation is crucial for vertexing and for
  geometry design of the next detector
• Surface? Near surface? How deep? What spacing
  between stations? Between clusters?
• We need access to good simulation tools
• (I used my own hack for quick and dirty
  stuff-this is not a full ray tracing or god
  forbid neutrino Askaryan simulation, though it
  can be worked on and improved, I doubt that it
  worth the effort since there are more complete
  tools out there.)

50
Ray Tracing
51
(No Transcript)
52
Shallow Cluster
Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4
Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4
- Forced trigger runs RMS 20-30 counts 22-33
mV - Triggered runs RMS 90-110 100-120 mV -
More noise on Channel 4
53
Shallow cluster
Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4
Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4

• More power in trigger runs than in forced runs
• Channel 4 more power
• Trigger runs show a peak near 200 MHz

54
Deep Cluster
Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4
Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4
- Forced trigger runs RMS 10-20 counts 11-22
mV - Triggered runs RMS 65-80 71-90 mV - More
noise on Channel 43
55
Deep Cluster
Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4
Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4

• More power in trigger runs than in forced runs
• Channel 34 more power - especially in lower
  freq
• Trigger runs show a peak near 200 MHz

56
Suitability of IceCube environment

• Channel and cluster trigger rates were compared
  when IceCube/AMANDA were idle and taking data.

Channel 1 Scaler rate vs. Discriminator value
IC AMANDA on AMANDA off IC AMANDA off

• Noise from IC/AMANDA is enhanced in lower
  frequency on a given channel/band.
• Combined trigger reject most of this noise.
• Measurement only down to 200 MHz

band A (Lowest freq.)
band B (Low freq.)
band D (Highest freq.)
band C (High freq.)