Update on SuperK Detector Failure

This note came in from Director Totsuka to the press and other scientists. Hemos and I felt it deserved more than just a regular SlashBack reference, as we feel that this is an important project. (I belive this comes form a translation from japanese, so forgive the errors) this is an update to the original post on the Super-K malfunction.

As a director of the Kamioka Observatory, which owns and is responsible to operate and maintain the Super-Kamiokande detector, it is really sad that I have to announce the severe accident that occurred on November 12 and damaged the significant part of the detector. The cause and how to deal with the lo ss in future will be discussed by newly found committees. However, even before discussing with my colleagues of the Super-K and K2K collaborations, I have decided to express my intension on behalf of the staff of the Kamioka Observatory.

We will rebuild the detector. There is no question. The strategy may be the following two steps, which will be proposed and discussed by my colleagues.

• 1. Quick restart of the K2K experiment.
  • (1) We will clear the safety measures which may be suggested by the committees.
  • (2) reduce the number density of the photomultiplier tubes by about a half.
  • (3) use the existing resources.
  • (4) resume the K2K experiment as soon as possible; the goal may be within one year.
  2. Preparation for the JHF-Kamioka experiment.
  • (1) Restore the full Super-Kamiokande detector armed with the state-of-the-art techniques.
  • (2) The detector will be ready by the time of the commissioning of the JHF machine.

To achieve our objective is formidable but we are determined to do so. But we certainly need your encouragement, advice and help. I should appreciate it very much if you could support our effort as you have kindly done so before.

Best regards,
Yoji Totsuka
director, Kamioka Observatory
On behalf of the Kamioka Observatory staff

Comments

Re:So...

[spaceyhackerlady]

Just what is the SuperK?

A detector for neutrinos. Have a look at their web page.

I attended a talk last night by one of the scientists from the Sudbury neutrino detector. One of their Big Issues at the moment is figuring out why all the best neutrino detectors only pick up a fraction of the neutrinos predicted by all the best theories on the innards of stars.

...laura

Re:Wait how is this gonna work?

[brainboyz]

Using double the desity of Photomultiplier Tubes allows them to get a better resolution picture of the energy released when the nutrino passes through. They won't get half the pictures, but they'll see them half as well.

It's a good solution for the time being because at least they can take pictures. If they waited until longer to get all the PMTs replaced, then they'd have less pictures overall instead of less resolution for a short period of time.

Night and Day

[MarkusQ]

So the assertion (or hypothosis) is that the amount of neutrinos emitted from the sun's core is different during night than day??

No, the same number are emitted, but if they have to travel through the bulk of the earth before reaching the detector, it will effect how many you detect. That's true of photons too (you see a lot more of them durring the day, even though the sun emits at a ~constant rate), but here it is even more interesting; the neutrinos aren't being absorbed by the earth, they are being converted between two forms, one of which is easier for a particular detector to detect. So you can wind up detecting more at night!

--MarkusQ

Re:If I understand this correctly...

[Tsar]

Super-K is basically a huge underground cylindrical tank, about 40 meters wide and 40 meters deep, containing 50,000 tons of very nearly pure water. The sides, top, and bottom of the tank are covered with PMT's, the photomultiplier tubes which serve as detectors in the telescope. They are all pointed inward toward the mass of water, ready to detect the slightest Cherenkov light. (And slight it is—the Cherenkov light generated by the shockwave of a single muon is about as bright to the detector as a single candle seen from the Moon.)

Fortunately, each PMT is sensitive enough to detect a single photon of Cherenkov light. How does it do this? The same way you eat an elephant—one bite at a time. First, the photon hits a photo-cathode on the inner surface of the PMT's glass bulb, and the photo-cathode, in turn, releases an electron. The electron is attracted to a dynode, which carries a high-voltage positive charge, and accelerates toward it. When it hits, its great kinetic energy causes the dynode to emit several electrons, which are attracted to a second dynode with an even higher positive charge. The process repeats once for every dynode in the detector, until the final dynode is deluged with electrons, and sends a signal indicating that it has detected a photon. Neat, eh?

As you can imagine, PMT's are expensive ($3000 each, in this case), delicate, precision instruments, and you don't move them around like lightbulbs on a Christmas tree. Especially if you've recently gone from having 11,242 of them to having only 4,000 or so in one horrific oops.

Re:Wait how is this gonna work?

[dragons_flight]

Yes they will detect it. What you lose by reducing sensors is resolution as to direction and energy.

It's actually rather unlike that they'll miss nuetrino events because of such a change. I've had the oppurtunity to look at individual event plots and raw data, and the Cerenkov light from a single event actually registers in a considerable fraction of the tank. IIRC, typically 5-30% of detectors see each event.

They use the timing of when each detector becomes active to reconstruct the path and speed of the particle generating the light. So fewer PMT tubes means less accuracy in determining the direction and energy of the nuetrino that produced the event. I would guess that it's not the case that half as many tubes means half the accuracy. If I were to make an estimate I'd say you're probably increasing the error on individual measurements by around 30-60% (as opposed to 100%, if it were doubled). This is most important on electron nuetrino events which were somewhat hard to accurately determine to begin with, compared to their muonic cousins.

With only half the amount of sensors - wont these sensors each have more pressure placed on them?

No. Hydrodynamics doesn't work that way.

Wasnt a collapse because of water pressure what caused the initial sensor implosion chain reaction?

Well the machine worked successfully for several years at the same amount of pressure, so this shouldn't be the initial cause of the accident. However it is entirely likely that the pressure facillitated the disasterous chain reaction once some faulty equipment or human error got it started.

This is an exotic size of tube and most of the replacements will have to be manufactured (which takes time), so this is probably the best solution we can expect in the near term.

Why use PMTs over solid-state light detectors?

[sigwinch]

When you want to sense the raw quantity of light arriving (i.e., you don't care about direction, image, and color), PMTs are ludicrously good. They are absurdly linear over the range of one photon/year to millions of photons/second. (Solid-state detectors are notoriously nonlinear.) PMTs have a tremendous dynamic range. PMTs can measure the time of arrival of individual photons to the nearest nanosecond. (Solid-state devices tend to be much slower.) I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect that large PMTs are vastly more reliable than equivalent solid-state detectors.

The real kicker is cost. Solid-state devices cost on the order of $1,000,000 per square meter of active area! PMTs are on the order of $100,000 per square meter. If you want hundreds of square meters of active area -- like in a neutrino observatory -- PMTs are the only way to go.

Re:Why TUBES ??

[markmoss]

If you want to count each individual photon, photomultiplier tubes are the only choice.

In a PMT, a photon hitting the first plate releases an electron. The first plate (cathode) is negatively charged, so the electron flies off towards the less-negative 2nd plate, picking up enough energy to knock several electrons loose. These hit the third plate, knocking out more electrons, and so on. After many plates, the pulse of electrons is large enough to be easily measured, so they are collected and output on a wire at the back of the tube (anode). You can either measure the average current to determine photons/seconds, or detect each pulse to determine when each photon arrived. The super-K uses the latter method, since it has to compare photon arrival times to find the position of the event which created a burst of photons.

The PMT has very high gain and a remarkably good signal to noise ratio. "Gain" is the number of electrons out for one freed electron in, and you just add plates (and increase the overall voltage) until you get what you need. "Noise" would be an electron spontaneously flying off from the cathode, and this is pretty rare.

Solid-state detectors also start with a photon energizing one electron to jump somewhere it wouldn't normally go. Then you need an amplifier. It's possible to build solid-state circuits that will amplify a single electron to a measurable pulse, but to make it that sensitive you must also make it possible for electrons to just tunnel through the first amplifier stage on their own, and this is indistinguishable from detected photons. So it's hard to sort out the signal from the noise.