ILC Detector R - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

ILC Detector R

Description:

HongJoo Kim (Kyonpook National U, Korea) Wolfgang Lohmann (DESY-Zeuthen, Germany) ... Pb-Si sandwich. Moliere radius 2.1 cm. 10 November 2005. DESY PRC Chris ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:25
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 27
Provided by: cjsd3
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: ILC Detector R


1
ILC Detector RD
  • Chris Damerell
  • Rutherford Appleton Lab
  • ILC Detector RD Panel and charge
  • Addendum to charge, and action plan from Panel
  • Input from detector RD groups
  • Missing Topics
  • Longer term plans Preliminary discussion with
    GDE
  • Conclusions

2
ILC Detector RD Panel and charge
  • 9 members appointed shortly before LCWS 2005
    by WWS-OC, 3 from each
    region
  • Jean-Claude Brient (Ecole Polytechnique, France)
  • Chris Damerell (RAL, UK) chair
  • Ray Frey (U Oregon, USA)
  • HongJoo Kim (Kyonpook National U, Korea)
  • Wolfgang Lohmann (DESY-Zeuthen, Germany)
  • Dan Peterson (Cornell U, USA)
  • Yasuhiro Sugimoto (KEK, Japan)
  • Tohru Takeshita (Shinsu U, Japan)
  • Harry Weerts (Michigan State U, USA)
  • Our website
  • https//wiki.lepp.cornell.edu/wws/bin/view/Pro
    jects/WebHome

3
  • Charge for WWS LC Detector RD Panel 13th Jan
    2005
  • Create and maintain a register of ongoing RD
    programs relevant for LC experiments, which
    should include RD goals and schedules, names of
    participating institutions and their
    responsibilities, relevant publications, level of
    support, and web-links to current work. The RD
    programs should include not only those required
    for the proposed detector concepts, but also
    those needed for measurements of luminosity,
    energy, and polarization (LEP) and those
    associated with the masking system, possible beam
    EMI, and other areas which may a overlap with
    MDI. The registration of such MDI projects should
    be performed jointly with the MDI panel. Maintain
    a central web repository for this information,
    and update it regularly.
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • 5. Continue these activities, and whatever
    further activities are judged important to
    prepare needed RD for LC detectors, until a
    global lab assumes these responsibilities

4
Addendum to charge, and action plan from Panel
  • Addendum to our charge, given to us by ILCSC
    on 27th September (following meeting with Barry
    Barish et al on 18th August in Snowmass)
  • At the request of the chair of the ILCSC,
  • Produce a written report by the end of 2005
    which identifies and prioritises the topics and
    areas of detector RD which need immediate
    support. Inputs to this should be collected both
    from the detector concept teams and from all the
    detector RD collaborations and groups
    interested, via their contact persons with the
    Detector RD Panel. Individual proposals should
    not be identified. This report will initially be
    submitted to the WWS-OC, and then passed to the
    ILCSC.
  • Could lead to expanded funds for detector RD in
    USA (and possibly elsewhere) as early as FY2006
  • Given this timescale, we needed to move fast

5
  • Action plan, unanimously agreed by our Panel on
    11th October
  • A topic is typically a body of work within a
    subdetector,
  • eg the minimisation of endplate thickness
    within the TPC subdetector
  • Priority 1 Results needed urgently for proof of
    principle, to significantly enhance physics
    capability and/or reduce costs. Results needed
    in order to prepare LOI at end of 2008 (or as
    late as 2010 for lower-cost detector systems,
    such as BEAMCAL, LUMICAL, vertex detector)
  • Priority 2 Essential RD, but not a potential
    showstopper, so results post-LOI will be OK. Or,
    RD with goals on a longer timescale than ILC
    startup, eg for upgrade to 1 TeV
  • Some Priority 2 items will eventually evaporate,
    for subdetector options which arent incorporated
    in an approved overall detector (e.g. at least
    8/10 of vertex detector technology options)
  • To first order, our Panel is simply collecting
    assessments from our wise contact people. If we
    have doubts about priorities suggested or sums
    estimated , we will resolve our differences in
    discussion with them.

6
Subdetector
eg TPC, Si tracker, ECAL
Contact people
Project N1
Project N
See Panel web page for guidelines as to meaning
of a project
Min endplate thickness
TOPICS
Optimise gas mix
Priorities
1
2
No question of fiddling around with secure funding
New money
Secure funding
1
2
2
1
Tbd, 1 or 2
Our job Publish needs for each Priority 1 topic
7
CERN Courier November 2005
formerly Bids to host site selection
8
Window for Detector RD
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
GDE (Design)
(Construction)
Technology Choice
Acc.
CDR
TDR
Start Global Lab.
Detector Outline Documents
CDRs
LOIs
Det.
Done!
Detector RD Panel

Collaboration Forming
RD Phase
Detector
Construction
Andy White, SiD RD plans, Snowmass, 20 Aug
2005 Currently (?) Accelerator BCD end 2005
Detector RD Panel
Report end 2005
3 (or 4?) DODs March 2006
Detector CDR end 2006 In
practice, detector RD will extend much later,
being continued within the approved
collaboration(s)
Tevatron
SLAC B
HERA
LHC
T2K

9
Input from detector RD groups
  • Dan Peterson and colleagues at Cornell U have
    set up, maintained and continue developing an
    excellent website for the RD reports
  • Since LCWS2005, our Panel has worked via
    e-mail, phone calls and personal contacts, to
    establish one contact person per detector
    collaboration (or per group, if preferred by the
    groups), and to help that person complete the
    register for their project
  • Response rate was slow till end of Snowmass,
    because we had no carrots and no sticks
  • This has changed with the Addendum to our charge.
    Groups have at last recognised the disadvantages
    of being left out
  • 2nd Nov, 7 projects added from Fermilab

    4th Nov, 6 projects added from from
    SLAC
  • More to come, eg from DESY? Karsten Buesser et
    al, Ralf Gerhards et al,
  • One extremely laid-back contact person eventually
    thanked me for my persistence

10
  • Funding Inquiry Form has been sent to all our
    contact people (40 at Snowmass, now 70)
  • Asked them to define topics as
  • Priority 1
  • Priority 2
  • For their Priority 1 work only, asked about
    level of established support for next 3 years
    (alternatively, support in 2005) broken down as
  • Equipment (meaning all non-staff costs) in or
  • Academics
  • Students in FTEs
  • Support staff
  • Asked about additional support needed (2006-2008
    or 2006-2010) to achieve their Priority 1 goals
  • Requested a separate form for each funding
    country NOT funding agency! (with
    EU considered to be a separate country)
  • Panel members then spoke to (almost) all our
    contact people by phone
  • We introduced escape clauses for
    multinationals, those unable to guess their
    budget for next year, those with problems
    separating academics and support staff, people
    with rivals on our Panel, etc. All our contact
    people are now satisfied, we hope

11
  • Layout of the ILC Detector RD Panel Report, to
    be completed by 31st December
  • Executive Summary
  • Detector Systems
  • LEP (Ray Frey, )
  • Vertexing (Chris D, )
  • Tracking gaseous (Dan Peterson, )
  • Tracking - silicon (Harry Weerts, )
    plus 1 page per project
    information
  • Calorimetry (Wolfgang Lohmann, )
    including Research Statement
  • Muon tracking (Harry Weerts, )
    contributed by each contact person
  • PID (Chris D, )
    to the Panel website
  • DAQ OMIT?
  • Electromagnetic Interference (Chris D, )
  • Solenoid (Harry Weerts, )
  • Current funding levels and urgent needs for
    expansion
  • To be presented by topic and by country, not by
    project. But we will list the projects that have
    identified their needs, and those that have not,
    the latter under the heading
  • No information provided assumed to have
    no requirements for future support

12
Missing Topics
  • Example PID based on advanced DIRC could be
    important, given the possible use for heavy quark
    sign-selection, and excellent recent progress on
    focusing DIRC (Jerry VaVra et al) and on MPPCs
    (multi-pixel photon counters) by Hamamatsu
    photonics in collaboration with Shinsu U and
    Kyoto U
  • Are there others who have been discouraged by
    lack of support, from pursuing potentially
    important RD studies for ILC?
  • System integration inner electronics, cables,
    connectors, cooling, etc is unfashionable but
    could be decisive between subdetector options.
    This was left far too late in case of LHC
    experiments. Claimed by some in ILC to be
    covered by detector concepts, but each subsystem
    should work through this in order to be
    considered for an LOI.

13
  • Most seriously, could these issues threaten the
    PFA concept?
  • To satisfy the needs of ILC physics (where many
    important event types will appear as multi-jet
    topologies) PFA must continue to perform
    extremely well in the forward region

Dave Burke LCWS 1991 Saariselka Idealised PFA
over 4 pi sr
14
  • Given the mediocre record of LEP detectors and
    SLD for forward tracking, excellent performance
    in this region should not be taken for granted
  • PFA has been advertised for ILC since LCWS 1991,
    and jet energy resolution of 30/sqrt(Ejet ) has
    been suggested since Snowmass 1996
  • Isnt it about time it was demonstrated? Note
    comment from one great expert on jet energy
    measurement a few years ago that these people
    are completely crazy
  • First problem requires full simulation and
    reconstruction software. We have three of these
    monsters, but after 15 years, are any of them yet
    up to the job? Is this a case of divide and be
    conquered?
  • Note that reconstruction should include effects
    of secondary interactions of tracks in jets, and
    missing neutrinos in heavy-quark jets (possible
    VXD-related patchup) as well as photon
    conversions (which is the easiest of the 3 to
    deal with)

15
Admittedly, pbar-p annihilation in the endplate
of the vertex detector or TPC, to 8 pions, is an
extreme example But secondary interactions of
pions will be common pi-N elastic scattering
pi-N charge exchange
scattering pi-N inelastic scattering
will all need to be handled differently ..
16
  • Minimising the thickness of TPC
    endplate/electronics/cooling (and corresponding
    RD for silicon tracker) is surely a Priority 1
    topic
  • But what are the requirements (in interaction
    lengths, presumably) in order to reach the
    necessary precision in measurement of Ejet?
  • At Snowmass, Sonja Hillert introduced the concept
    of the luminosity factor, the factor by which
    the integrated luminosity would need to be
    increased, to compensate for a less performant
    detector
  • For the vertex detector, she showed that
    L-factors of about 2 could result from an
    increase in Rbp from 12-15 to 25 mm. Given the
    cost of running ILC (circa 120 M p.a.?) one can
    justify a very extensive RD effort by the MDI
    people in order to guarantee the small radius
    beampipe
  • What is the corresponding luminosity factor if
    one would accept an endplate system for barrel
    tracking which is easy to build, compared with
    one that needs substantial RD?
  • Is it unfair to describe these RD activities as
    missing topics?

17
Longer term plans preliminary discussion with
GDE
  • An initial discussion between a few RD Panel
    members, all WWS-OC chairmen, and Barry Barish
    for GDE took place on Aug 18th at Snowmass
  • Suggestion is being considered of evolving to a
    second phase, where our panel would be replaced
    by a committee under the GDE
  • This committee would review individual proposals,
    hold open session presentations, appoint
    referees, set milestones, require progress
    reports, etc.
  • Current composition of Detector RD Panel would
    not be appropriate we are all ILC insiders
    with potential conflicts of interest

18
  • Wise advice from Enzo Iarocci, who chaired the
    DRDC for 3 years, starting 1990, in the phase
    that led to the formation of the LHC detector
    collaborations (4 proposals that condensed into
    ATLAS and CMS)
  • Panel should have a modest budget (DRDC had
    approx 6M euros p.a.) in order to provide initial
    backing for approved projects. Could FALC help
    with such a central pool of funding?
  • Endorsement by this Panel would be a powerful
    stimulus for support from national funding
    agencies
  • Panel should organise Open Sessions, for
    presentation of proposals and status reports.
    For 3 years, the Open DRDC meetings at CERN were
    the main public platform for many LHC-related
    matters
  • To minimise costs and guarantee large audiences,
    it may be good to schedule these meetings as part
    of regional and international ILC gatherings
    (such as the ECFA/DESY workshop in Vienna next
    week, LCWS2006 in Bangalore)
  • DRDC was effective in rejecting a number of
    proposals, and in helping to focus RD in the
    critical period before the formation of the LHCC,
    and of the detector collaborations

19
Conclusions
  • The urgent task of the Detector RD Panel is to
    establish the current levels of support in
    different countries, and quantify the needed
    expansion, in order for the urgent Priority 1
    goals to be realised in time
  • It hasnt been easy, but we are now on track to
    achieve this by the end of the year
  • There are dangers, the most extreme expressed to
    our Panel being that the haves could be reduced
    to the level of the have-nots, but one has to
    be somewhat optimistic, or one would not work in
    our field
  • Creation of a global peer review panel with a
    modest budget to support projects could help to
    stimulate the expanded programme that everyone in
    the ILC detector community knows to be urgently
    needed
  • gt90 of support will continue to be supplied by
    national funding sources, in any circumstances

20
Additional Material
21
  • The GDE Plan and Schedule

2005 2006 2007 2008
2009 2010
Global Design Effort
Project
LHC Physics
Baseline configuration
Reference Design
Technical Design
ILC RD Program
Bids to Host Site Selection
International Mgmt
22
Henri Videau Pb-Si sandwich Moliere radius 2.1 cm
23


Jet charge Vertex charge (S Hillert) Charge
dipole SV/TV lepton SV/TV kaon Charge of
tertiary D
S Riemann LC-Th-2001-007
Places highest performance requirements on vertex
detector, and need R_bp 12-15 mm. Such
measurements of differential cross-sections and
angular correlations in multi-jet processes are
entirely inaccessible at LHC
24
Input from Concept Groups
  • Groups were requested by Snowmass to deliver
    reports describing their current RD activities
    and future needs, in order to turn their studies
    into proposals based on established detector
    technologies
  • The SiD group provided a detailed document
    including a spreadsheet covering all their
    detector subsystems. Thanks to Andy White for
    this
  • We received outlines from the other concept
    groups. Thanks to Ties Behnke and Yasuhiro
    Sugimoto
  • These (possibly updated) will be published as
    part of the overall RD Panel Report, at end of
    this year

25
Received 2nd November via Marcel
Demarteau active pixels Ray Yarema
Fermilab   active pixels based on SOI
technology  Ron Lipton Fermilab    hybrid
pixels  Dave Christian Fermilab   vertex
detector mechanical studies  Bill Cooper
Fermilab   5 T Solenoid studies  Rich Smith
Fermilab   Particle-flow algorithms and related
simulation software  Adam Para Ferimilab   Beampip
e design  Bill Cooper Fermilab
26
Received 4th November 2005 via John Jaros and
Mike Woods Si/W ECAL conceptual design    Yannis
Karyotakis SLAC/Annecy Microstrip sensor,
mounting, cabling    Tim Nelson SLAC VXD
expected performance, technology selection, EMI
issues    Su Dong SLAC Background calculations
Takashi Maruyama SLAC IR design   Tom
Markiewicz  SLAC Polarimetry   Ken Moffeit 
SLAC Any more to come, from DESY, CERN, etc? 
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com