Preliminary Results from ADRIANO2 Test Beams
, Gerald C. Blazey 2,†, Alexandre Dychkant 2,†, Jeffrey W. Elam 3,†, Michael Figora 2,†, Todd Fletcher 2,†, Kurt Francis 2,†, Ao Liu 4,†, Sergey Los 5,†, Cole Le Mahieu 6,†, Anil U. Mane 3,†, Juan Marquez 6,†, Michael J. Murray 6,†, Erik Ramberg 5,†, Christophe Royon 6,†, Michael J. Syphers 2,†, Robert W. Young 6,† and Vishnu Zutshi 2,†
Sarah Eno
Eduardo Cortina Gil
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Several tiles, with various thicknesses ranging from 10 mm to 30 mm, have been fabricated, using different surface finishes and coatings. They performed tests using Fermilab Test Beam facilities using 120 GeV Proton beam.The light yield for several groups of has been measured.
beam. They have currently no results for the timing resolution of the tiles- however they are planning to study in the future. They were also investigating their fabrication and coating methods to improve Cherenkov Light detection.
This is a good concept and productive test beam effort.
Author Response
Thank you for your. All comments were useful.
Kind regards,
Corrado
Reviewer 2 Report
Please find here my review of “Preliminary Results from ADRIANO2 Test Beams”.by C. Gatto et al. I very much enjoyed reading the paper, and recommend it be published. I give some minor comments below. Especially there are many broken figure references, which makes reading difficult.
· Line 34 suggest changing “very small volume ratio between passive and active materials” to “with a large fraction of active material” to make clearer the numerator and denominator of the ratio. You also might point out (see https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.025002, section on calorimetry) that you can also get compensation with a small sampling fraction, and that the best resolution achieved is close to 30%/sqrt( E ) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016890029190062U?via%3Dihub
· Who was the producer of your lead glass? (did cat-i-glass make it? Or just machine it?)
· Line 131 will the fluorescence of the ESR cause problems in a high rate experiment?
· Line 178 maybe cite https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.08499
· I strongly recommend improving figure 6 to modern figure standards to make it easier to read. The font especially on the legend is too small
· Top of page 7
· Line 199. I’m having trouble understanding why the ESR risetime affects the timing? Isn’t the timing set by photons produced in the glass that go directly to the sipmm, not from fluroresence off the esr?
Also, there are a few minor grammar issues the author may wish to fix
· In abstract, no comma after “of”
· Abtract Cerenkov sections, providing
· Line 24 informations
· Line 74 broken reference
· Line 89 a characteristic that spoils
· Line 112 and the mostly-blue Cerenkov (remove commas)
· Line 117. Something has gone wrong in this text? So wrong I cannot guess the cure. The “36” should be something else?
· Line 127 broken figure number
· Line 136 broken figure number
· Line 148 broken figure number
· Line 163 broken figure number
· Sentence starting line 176 A small rod… remove the commas. Also, the sentence is not clear. Should it be something like “A small quartz tile, with dimensions xx by xx, instrumented with a Hamamatsu…
· Line 174 broken figure number
· Line 188 broken figure number
· Line 193 broken figure number
Author Response
Thank you for your nice review. All comments were useful.
Kind regards,
Corrado
Reviewer 3 Report
This article describes the preliminary results obtained by T1604 collaboration with the ADRIANO2 tiles.
The title is well suited as the results are really preliminary, indeed only the light yield of several prototypes (a single lead-glass core with several coatings and/or wrappings.
In the article you can find the description of the ADRIANO2 tiles but it seems that only the lead glass tiles are tested. It's not clear and maybe it would be worth to clarify.
Line 94: SiPM directly coupled to the tiles is not a "novel approach".
There are also some editorial problems in the article: all figures are not referenced in the text. In line 117-118 there is a problem, the sentence is cut, with a "36" that it's not clear that has any sense.
About the results, there is an inconsistency. From line 109 to 120 there is a justification in which only direct photons arrive to SiPM. However, in the results section it's clearly stated that the diffuse coating have a larger yield than mirror. In a first naive interpretation if the bulk of photons that arrive to the SiPM are direct, diffuse or mirror coating should have not a sizeable effect. If it is not the case, the direct photon argument should be removed.
Fig 6 is far too small . It's very difficult to see anything and even more difficult to follow and read the legend with the configurations. I think that it should be changed; my only suggestion is to split the figure in several ones with larger polices. I understand it may be difficult.
The discussion part is quite disappointing because several important features as efficiency and time resolution are not reported or a preliminary result reported.
The reviewer recognizes the huge amount of work behind the reported results.
Author Response
Thank you for your nice review. All comments were useful.
As stressed several times, this is work in progress. Timing and efficiency will be discussed in an upcoming article.
Kind regards,
Corrado
