170 likes | 337 Views
S. Stone 11/5/99. BTeV Status. Collaboration Status New Groups University of Iowa - C. Newsom ( Pixels )
E N D
S. Stone 11/5/99 BTeV Status • Collaboration Status • New Groups • University of Iowa - C. Newsom (Pixels) • Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP - Protvino) - A. Derevschikov, Y. Goncharenko, V. Khodyrev, A.P. Meschanin, L. V. Nogach, K. E. Shestermanov, L. F. Soloviev and A. N. Vasiliev (EM calorimeter) • New People • Minnesota - A. Smith (Simulations) • Syracuse - R. Mountain (RICH & EM cal) • Syracuse - G. Majumder (EM cal simulations)
Pixel Test Beam Activities • Pixel tests - Great Results see Joel’s talk
Muon Tests • Muon tests • tube design robust - no broken wires • tubes are efficient > 95% on ArCO2, with wide plateaus • noise issues addressed • Straw tube tests planned but not started due to lack of resources
Electronics & DAQ Workshop • Organized with Ed Barsotti - Oct. 8-9, 1999 • Preliminary front end designs for all BTeV systems • Data flow to L1 buffer specified • Trigger and readout specified • High Voltage systems discussed with CAEN on Nov. 4, 1999
Schedule: Simulations • Now Working: BTeV GEANT, trigger, Calorimeter code including clustering (needs to be tuned) • Fix detector geometry 12/18 • Material Budget Studies (No, we don't require less material, but it would be nice) 1/7 • Working interface to GEANT or MCFAST 1/1 • Generate physics backgrounds (over Xmas holidays) • Finish final statesrequested by PAC: Borp, D*-r+, BsDs-K+3/1 • MCFAST studies of other processes 4/1
Oganization for Proposal - Pixels & Tracking • Pixels • Groups: CMU, Fermilab, IIT, Iowa, Milano, Syracuse, Wisconsin • Plan: Beam Tests of Fpix0, Fpix1 and path to final BTeV chip; engineering for full system asked for, but not yet provided • Tracking systems (straw tubes and silicon) • Groups: Indiana, Milano, Tenn. • Plan: Full system design
Schedule: Pixels • Beam test runs, finish 1/17 • Analysis of test runs finish 3/1 • Sensor delivery 2/15 • Initial tests 2/15 – 3/30 • 0.25 m CMOS, test chip 12/15, results 2/1 • Pre FPIX2, submission 12/15, results 5/1 • Bump bonding yield tests 3/1 • HDI flex cable module test 3/1 • Mechanical pre prototype 3/1
Oganization/schedule - RICH • Groups: Syracuse • Plan: Full design, aerogel tests, PMT or HPD choice • Some aerogel samples procured, tests to start soon, finish 3/1 • Met with Hamamatsu about multi-anode phototubes, will meet again in Dec. to discuss costs and delivery issues. Finalize design 4/1, full cost estimate 5/1
Oganization for Proposal - EM cal hardware • Groups: IHEP, FNAL, Minn., Syracuse, York • Plan: Full design including sizes, simulations, PMT choice, optimum readout (QIE) design • IHEP & Minn. Groups in contact with PbWO4 producers, discussion on crystal sizes, schedules, costs begun; trips soon • Talks held at Syracuse with Hamamatsu about phototubes
Phototubes • Constraints • Crystal size – 26 mm x 26 mm allows standard 1” tube. For 1 1/8” tube need 30 mm x 30 mm (still tight 1 1/8” = 29 mm) • We reject 24.7 mm2 (baseline as too small, can only use ¾” tube, which KTeV does, but its too expensive • Note 26 mm2 36,000 crystals (both arms) while 30 mm2 gives “only” 27,000 • Radiation Damage • Expect something like 140 Mrad, 10 year dose in worst place at 2 interactions/crossing • Can be handled with quartz window pm tubes from Hamamatsu. UV glass goes to 1/3 Mrad. • Russian FEU-115 tested to 34 Mrad (may be better) but is 29 mm diameter
Phototubes II • High Quantum Efficiency Required • We are photon statistics limited sE=1.6%/E 0.55% • Hamamatsu tubes may have larger light output • Tube must also have good linearity at high current ~ 30 ma (KTeV ~ 80 ma) • Candidate Hamamatsu & FEU tubes identified. We will visit Hamamatsu in early Dec. to get cost and delivery schedule on 1” and 1 1/8” tubes
Schedule: Calorimeter • PbWO4 – Get price and delivery schedules 3/1 • Phototubes – Choice and cost estimate of baseline – 2/1 • HV, bases, cable costs 3/1
Oganization/schedule - Trigger/DAQ • Organization • Groups: CMU, FNAL, IIT • Plan: Decide if two-plane trigger can work; demonstrate that trigger is of adequate speed; show that efficiency and rejection are adequate • Schedule • Trigger hardware timing studies • Level 1 - 2/15 • Level 2 – 4/1 • Level 3 strategy 4/1
Schedule: Muons • Groups: Illinois, Pavia, Puerto Rico, Vanderbilt • Beam Backgrounds using STRUCT and GEANT (Vandy) 1/1 – 4/15 • Trigger Development, Simulation, and Studies (PR, Ill., Vandy) 1/1 – 4/15 • Complete Assembly and Testing of 2nd generation "plank" (design changes motivated by beam tests). Needed for accurate system cost estimate. (Vandy, Ill.) 1/15 • Prototype work on readout electronics: both front-ends and downstream electronics: needed for accurate system cost estimate (Vandy) 1/15 – 4/15
Resources • BTeV R & D IS RESOURCE LIMITED • Have had difficulty with DOE providing funding for R & D for an experiment that is not approved. Bad Press? • We do not have enough money for all hardware tests, or enough engineering to do as good a job on the proposal as we are capable of doing • We will do our best, given the limited resources available. Some additional hardware funds and engineering resources from the lab would be most helpful
1st GEANT – MCFAST Comparison MCFAST GEANT