1 / 11

Muon Phase 2 Options A, B, and C

Muon Phase 2 Options A, B, and C. Jay Hauser, UCLA Updated from 11-Mar-2013 talk at Gmu meeting https://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=236794 CMS Week presentations and recent discussions: Better understand linkage with endcap calorimetry upgrade Future meetings:

jack
Download Presentation

Muon Phase 2 Options A, B, and C

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. Muon Phase 2 Options A, B, and C Jay Hauser, UCLA • Updated from 11-Mar-2013 talk at Gmu meeting https://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=236794 • CMS Week presentations and recent discussions: • Better understand linkage with endcap calorimetry upgrade • Future meetings: • General Muon (GMu) meeting next Monday (Apr. 29) • May 8: Forward Detector Working Group meeting that will focus on muons

  2. Muon Phase 2 Options, IMHO • Minimal: if endcap calorimeter geometry is fixed • Calorimeter degradation allowed at cost to physics capabilities • Limited options for muon detector (maybe electronics, GE2/1, RE1/2) Additionally, if new endcap calorimeter & tracking coverage to |h|<4.0: • Extend muon coverage to 2.4<|h|<3.5 in “conventional” way • Add muon detectors at the back of the present HE and/or behind YE4 • Used for muon tagging, not L1 trigger: increase acceptance, could reduce MET • Alternate to plan B: add iron muon toroids in place of HF to cover 2.4<|h|<4.0 • Not terribly expensive, option to provide trigger • General reluctance: need to provide good physics motivation (including different kind of muon reconstruction)

  3. Muon Option A: Minimal changes if endcap calorimeter geometry fixed • Replace electronics as necessary, for increases in L1 trigger latency and event accept rate • CSC new front end for latency > 6 ms, DT electronics if rate>300 kHz • Cost ~14+5 MChF, respectively • “Redundancy” argument for additional detectors in |h| < 2.4 seems insufficient • Best case was GE1/1, committee felt that was not justification enough • Depends mostly on inefficiency or bad performance of CSC, a weak argument • L1 trigger could still make some additions to improve rate or efficiency • GE2/1 and RE1/2 are two projects that have been discussed, not yet proposed • Unlikely to put muon tagger behind YE4 to cover 2.4 < |h| < 3.0 • No space available unless HF moved backwards, even then high rates and needs simulation

  4. Muon tagger for 2.4<|h|<3.0 ? • In this view it looks possible, but…

  5. Detailed view of HF region • In the more detail drawing it looks impossible

  6. Muon Option B:New EE/HE, extend muon coverage to |h|<3.5 • In scenario where Tracker and endcap calorimeter coverage increased to |h|<4.0 • Refurbishment of endcap very difficult in situ; rebuild the whole thing • Rad-hard calor technology seems to allow this • Extend muon coverage to 2.4 < |h| < 3.5 or so • In space behind HE, or make HE a “tracking calorimeter“ where the tail of had shower = muon detector, or • In space behind YE4 • Rates are high, but use as “tagging” detector, don’t trigger • Have a high-momentum central track: is there a muon tag nearby?

  7. Muon detectors in new endcap • At back of present HE • Totally new calorimeter • Existing structure too “hot” • Coverage options: • Minimal (top), maximal (bottom) shown on right • {1.5, 2.1, 2.4} < |h| < {3.5, 4.0} • Complement or replace ME1/1 • “Integrated” option • Build all of HE with GEM technology, for example m new HE m

  8. Muon detectors behind YE3 • Similar to muon “tagger” already discussed but extend to |h|=3.5 or so • HF replaced by something that stops particles for |h|>4 • Little HF? Inside cone? • TAS+? • Shielding of muon tagger on all sides needed m tagger Jets, underlying events

  9. Muon Option C:New EE/HE, add iron muon toroids in place of HF • Similar size, weight as HF, cover 2.4<|h|<4.0? • Gives B*L around 4 T*m, very good bending, but limited resolution due to multiple scattering • Innermost part, still need shielding of muon detectors • Could be used for triggering if justified by physics • Toroids themselves are not so expensive ~7 MChF, total cost maybe 10-30 MChF • But need to change name of our experiment? Detectors, iron core toroids New TAS, shielding New endcap

  10. Branch points • In any case, will do electronics upgrades as necessary to accommodate L1 trigger changes • Endcap calorimeter replacement, or not? • This is unlikely to be decided by DESY Upgrades Week, early June • If NO, options are limited: • Probably just update the electronics as necessary • N.B. the GE2/1 and RE1/2 are on the table as enhancements to trigger • If YES, it gets more interesting, in addition can propose: • Detectors at the back of the present HE and maybe a back tagger, or • Muon toroid detectors

  11. Possible discussion topics • Or, if not the time now, to discuss at another Gmu meeting • Redundancy as a weak argument • Additional trigger rate reduction arguments (e.g. GE2/1) • Creating space between YE3, HF for muon tagger • Details on new HE calorimeters: creating space for muon detectors, etc. • “ME0” within HE choice of detector technology • Toroids: magnetic forces on them & YE3 • Toroids choice of detector technology • Uses of high-h muons to increase acceptance, reduce sources of MET

More Related