Detector group organization

For the CDR writing we had identified subsystem
editors/conveners
 This
structure has concluded its function
 Many thanks for the effort and commitment


We should move forward to the next phase
Goals:
 Advance
the R&D activity as coherently as possible
 Start creating the infrastructure and doing the work
needed for a Technical Design Report
 Prepare the ground for the formation of a collaboration

We need to keep a delicate but essential balance:
 Move
forward coherently
 Leave room for other groups to join
May 10, 2007
Dal CDR al TDR , occorre una Collaborazione
1
R&D Perspectives



R&D will be funded at the local or regional level
until there is a SuperB collaboration.
Groups approach(ed) their funding agencies to
get support for what they’re interested in.
Nonetheless now that we have a CDR detector,
coordination of activities is important:
 Identify
the most important R&D issues
 Avoid duplication of effort
 Act together to ask for money
 Provide a structure for new activities or new groups
INFN comincera’ a finanziare nel 2008
May 10, 2007
2
R&D Coordination

I think it would be useful to setup a structure of
R&D conveners for the subsystems with the job
of:
 Keep
track/coordinate activities
 Help groups focus on what is needed
 Provide a point of reference for groups or individuals
wishing to participate
 Help prepare funding proposals or reports

Each subsystem should have one or two
conveners
 Let’s
use the rest of this workshop to discuss about
names
 Not all the vacancies need to be filled now
 Not a life sentence: which should allow dynamic
adaptation as things evolve
Considerazioni (quasi ovvie) al contorno
May 10, 2007
3
Subsystems
MDI (including beam pipe)
 SVT (including Layer0)
 DCH
 EMC (including endcaps)(**)
 PID (including endcaps)(*)
 IFR (**)
 Electronics
 Trigger/DAQ
 Computing
 Software

Shopping list, * indica possibile interesse nostro
May 10, 2007
4
R&D Review and choices

At some point we will need a more formal R&D review
process


Committee to review and monitor activity and provide advice to the
management
IMHO this should be setup when the collaboration is formed or
forming



For some regions it may be advantageous to create this committee
earlier
We need to explore the ramifications of this proposal
Eventually we will have to make choices about technology



Usual difficult balance between good that works and better that
might not
We should use the time in front of us to develop the new
technologies as much as possible
Act together as a group working towards an experiment

Minimize pain and disappointment when choices will actually be made
by the SuperB collaboration
May 10, 2007
Ulteriori considerazioni
5
Software

Simulation
 We

need to ramp up our simulation ability
More and more detailed
 Connection




with physics group and accelerator design
Physics studies
Background simulation
Detector studies
Infrastructure
 We
need to start setting up a software infrastructure
(and group)
 From repository to framework
 We’ve been using SLAC/Babar so far. How much
longer ?
May 10, 2007
Questo riguarda tutti, quindi anche noi!
6
Last but not least

Infrastructure in Tor Vergata
 We
need to proceed with a feasability study for
the Tor Vergata site
 It is essential to define building volumes and
functions

Experimental hall(s), support buildings and caverns,
shafts, assembly halls, …
 We
have regular meetings with the Tor Vergata
engineers and architects

Need input and answers from the Accelerator and
Detector group
Questo non ci riguarda da vicino, ma e’ vicino!!!!
May 10, 2007
7
PID

Per gli amanti della photon detection
Ratcliff
Three active groups: SLAC,
Ljubljana, BINP


DIRC Barrel readout
Forward (Backward PID):
TOF, Focusing RICH
Projected performance
May 10, 2007
8
Forward PID



Physics case
Cost/benefit analysis
Technology choice/maturity
Ratcliff
TOF resolution
Focusing configuration – data
4cm aerogel single index
2+2cm aerogel
May 10, 2007
Križan
SuperB V
Peter Križan, Ljubljana
Bench tests of fast timing PMTs are encouraging to
date.
Best results with the laser diode:
s ~ 12 ps for Npe = 50-60 (as expected
from 1cm thick Cherenkov radiator).
s TTS < 26 ps for Npe ~ 1.
Upper limit on the MCP-PMT
contribution: s MCP-PMT < 6.5 ps.
TAC/ADC contribution to timing: s
TAC_ADC < 3.2 ps.
Total electronics contribution at present:
s Total_electronics~ 7.2 ps.
More to come soon….We plan to continue detector
work and confirm TOF performance in a test beam
run this year….However, test beams at SLAC after
this year are a concern.
May 10, 2007
9
Forward PID
Summary
Križan
A proximity focusing RICH with ~20 cm radiator to photon
detector distance and ~6x6mm2 pads is a very promissing
option for the endcap region of a Super B factory.
●
Single refractive index radiator has an optimal radiator
thickness of ~2cm; increasing the thickness results in a
degradation of Cherenkov angle resolution per track.
●
A multi layer radiator with varying refractive index in the
focusing configuration allows to improve the performance, a ~5
sigma /K separation up to 4 GeV/c is expected.
●
MCP PMT development in BINP

Photocathode ageing is rate dependent

Counting rate was increased from test to
test keeping the integrated cathode charge
constant (~5 nC)

3 MCP PMTs have the same life time as
2 MCP with protective layer
Number of Average QE
tested
degradation
tubes
at 800nm
'old' PMT with
2 MCPs
10
'new' PMT with
17
3 MCPs
27%
RD issues: read-out electronics,
photon detector
SuperB V
●
May 10, 2007
Peter Križan, Ljubljana
Photon detector candidate: SiPM
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
immune to magnetic field
high photon detection efficiency up to 70%
good timing properties (~300ps FWHM)
no high voltage
low material budget
high noise rate ~ 1MHz/mm2
radiation damage - increase
of dark count rate
1.3%
Kravchenko
May 10, 2007
Such a counter can also be used for TOF measurement
→ extend PID capabilities into low momentum region
●
Surface scan with single
photons using a narrow
SuperB V
May 10, 2007 time (~10ns) window.
1mm
10
Peter Križan, Ljubljana
EMC
Hitlin
Active group in CALTECH
(Ren-yuan Zhu)
May 10, 2007
11
Interessa anche PG, PD, sinergia con CMS-Roma
Acceptance studies
BKGD/Signal
with smearing
Mazur



Forw acc.
Btn benchmark
Basis for a cost benefit
analysis of a backward
calorimeter
Need to commission a
full detailed study for the
TDR
BKGD/Signal
with smearing
Backw. acc.
May 10, 2007
12
IFR
Cavoto
R&D NOW (TO DO)



For the scintillator we are
in 2002 (virtually)
No active group (yet)
Need to get going if we
want to be ready in time
Sinergia con Cuore (+Pd, Fe)
May 10, 2007
13