1 / 8

Review of PPS (Precision Proton Spectrometer) Proposals

Review of PPS (Precision Proton Spectrometer) Proposals HPS (morning) and CMS-TOTEM (afternoon) Tue May 21st. We should have four (or 5?) presentations: 1) Physics Motivation, operating scenario Mike 2) Moving pipe and LHC connections Jonathan and/or Krzysztof

holly
Download Presentation

Review of PPS (Precision Proton Spectrometer) Proposals

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. Review of PPS (Precision Proton Spectrometer) Proposals HPS (morning) and CMS-TOTEM (afternoon) Tue May 21st We should have four (or 5?) presentations: 1) Physics Motivation, operating scenario Mike 2) Moving pipe and LHC connections Jonathan and/or Krzysztof 3) Tracking detectors including readout, DAQ Sergey Los 4) Timing detectors including R/O and Level-1 trigger Mike 5) Costs, resources, schedule Doug (in absentia) if possible Any other volunteers for speaking to any issues, speak up! All are encouraged to attend and participate.

  2. We may not have all the answers, but do the best we can... Some Q’s need extra effort that should come with positive feedback/approval. The primary differences between the two proposals are: 1) The moveable beam pipe (MBP) is technically superior 2) The HPS is a CMS (internal) project. Most other issues are common to the two proposals, and we can use that. “Not being negative about them, but extra positive about us!” Should we discuss/coordinate with them beforehand, and if so how? Discuss. The most important outcome is that a PPS is added to CMS. It is essential that strong technical support at CERN is provided. We have none at all now (Sorina has a new job in LHC).

  3. Brief introduction to long history H(125) was a strong motivation: could measure M, width, J, CP, BF’s Now all measured.. is there any need ... one more way of studying H(125) Some heavier Higgs scenarios favouringpH’p. >>> Not proposing 420m, but 240-250m & Stage 1 physics case Physics case for A & B identical ... only minor differences in acceptance & resolution p + pp + X + p by γγ, γP, and PP exchange  Z, WW, 2,3,4 jets, no jets, b, c, New HPS detectors designed for at least 1 year/100 fb-1 before (simple) replacement Timing (at σ(Δt) = 10ps) designed for μ = 25-30 interactions/bunch crossing. (25ns) Pile-up background grows~ μ2 and by 40-50 likely to be limiting. All 4-expts proposal developing, for 1-2 weeks of dedicated μ = 1 running mainly for diffractive physics at pb-1 level. PPS will enable many new publcations. PPS enhances, expands and enriches the CMS physics program, opening a new window in QCD (P & NP) as well as EWK (e.g. exclusive WW, ZZ).

  4. Acceptances in xi, t, and in M(X) Apart from a short low-PU run, we accept the standard Low-beta High-L conditions. Assume 25ns as CMS and ATLAS want that, and we prefer that to reduce PU. Longer luminous region advantageous for PU reduction.

  5. A) Local trigger bit: >= ¾ modules hit, the OR of the 20 elements in a module Single bit on optical fiber to UCX trigger location. Combine L and R bits with central Jets, Muons, E/Gamma. B) Send bit from each element (96/side) to central trigger. Local processor can make “tracks” and correlate with Jets etc.

More Related