Paper detail

Thick GEM versus thin GEM in two-phase argon avalanche detectors

The performance of thick GEMs (THGEMs) was compared to that of thin GEMs in two-phase Ar avalanche detectors, in view of their potential application in coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering, dark-matter search and in other rare-event experiments. The detectors comprised a 1 cm thick liquid-Ar layer followed by either a double-THGEM or a triple-GEM multiplier, operated in the saturated vapor above the liquid phase. Three types of THGEMs were studied: those made of G10 and Kevlar and that with resistive electrodes (RETHGEM). Only the G10-made THGEM showed a stable performance in two-phase Ar with gains reaching 3000. Successful operation of two-phase Ar avalanche detectors with either thin- or thick-GEM multipliers was demonstrated at low detection thresholds, of 4 and 20 primary electrons respectively. Compared to the triple-GEM the double-THGEM multiplier yielded slower anode signals; this allowed applying a pulse-shape analysis to effectively reject noise signals. Noise rates of both multipliers were evaluated in two-phase Ar; with detection thresholds of 20 electrons and applying pulse-shape analysis noise levels as low as 0.007 Hz per 1 cm2 of active area were reached.

preprint2008arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.