1 / 8

Low Q option of ILC

Low Q option of ILC. 2005.June 8 Y. Sugimoto, T. Fujikawa. Crossing angle L* Beam parameters Ne/bunch s Timing etc. Minimum veto angle n, e+/e- back scattering Anti-solenoid DID Event overlap Background in BCAL Readout timing. Main MDI Issues. BCAL All sub-det. Solenoid, TPC

cili
Download Presentation

Low Q option of ILC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Low Q option of ILC 2005.June 8 Y. Sugimoto, T. Fujikawa

  2. Crossing angle L* Beam parameters Ne/bunch s Timing etc. Minimum veto angle n, e+/e- back scattering Anti-solenoid DID Event overlap Background in BCAL Readout timing Main MDI Issues • BCAL • All sub-det. • Solenoid, TPC • BCAL • All sub-det. MDI issues are Physics/Detector issues!

  3. Parameter sets by Tor Raubenheimer peak luminosity • TESLA • USSC • Nominal • Low Q (Low charge) • Large Y (Large Emittance) • Low P • High Lum 31034 parameterspace 21034 Nick Walker (LCWS2005)

  4. Proposed Machine Parameters

  5. Advantages of Low Q option • Same Luminosity but less bunch Luminosity (1/2 of nominal option) • Less possibility of event overlap (2-g events) • Less beamstrahlung power • Less incoherent pair background • Per BX: 1/5 of TESLA design, 1/3 of nominal option • Less b.g. hits in the Beam Calorimeter  Better veto efficiency • Per Train: 2/5 of TESLA design, 2/3 of nominal option • Less b.g. hits in the Vertex Detector

  6. Disadvantages(?) of LowQ option • Smaller beta functions and beam size • Compatible with large l* ? • Smaller bunch spacing of 154 ns • Hard job of the Damping Ring • No problem for FPCCD • How about other detector components?

  7. Simulation Study • Pair background hit rate on the 1st layer of the Vertex Detector (R=24mm) • Simulation using CAIN and JUPITER • Hit rate of the Low Q option is ~1/3 of the nominal option, as expected

  8. Summary • New ILC parameter sets are different from that of TESLA design • LowQ option is attractive from the view point of the detector • It has been confirmed by simulation study using CAIN and JUPITER that the LowQ option makes less background hits on the vertex detector than the nominal option

More Related