Choose timezone
Your profile timezone:
B0 engineering and design
→
US/Eastern
Description
https://jlab-org.zoomgov.com/j/1615403530?pwd=TnFCTTVodjkxUm12amFtbDJkeThSUT09
----------
Meeting topics:
*Cooling updates
*Stave requirements and tracker layout
*space for RDOs
Beam pipe at transition to B0 --> new bellows proposed by Guna
- Alex will perform simulations to assess impact of update from vacuum group.
- Need detailed installation sequence.
- Additional bellows proposed by Guna (on the hadron beam pipe) is needed somewhere to allow us to separate main detector beam pipe from the rest to roll the detector out of the IR.
- These newly proposed bellows create two problems:
- In the way for installation of B0 systems.
- More material overlapping the B0 acceptance at small angles where particle production is primarily focused (Alex will simulate).
- These newly proposed bellows create two problems:
- Question to Guna --> the new bellows (maybe also having a gate valve) stay with the "B0 side" or the "IP side" when ePIC is rolled out?
- If the former, do we have an option to gate the vacuum at the transition from the B0pf to the B0Apf to avoid an additional installation impedance for the detectors?
- The acceptance issue + potential additional secondaries which could further impact tracking performance.
B0 tracker acceptance issue in geometric layout --> Igor and Avishay
- Area between hadron beam pipe and electron shield tube too small for current stave width.
- option 1: PCB version without "wings" (two PCB flavors, but still only one flavor of sensor/ASIC) - width ONLY the 16mm sensor width).
- option 2: "half versions" of sensors + ASICs, leading to a smaller-width PCB (just for this region; so two "flavors" of PCB + sensor/ASIC).
- Igor will perform simulations to assess impact on acceptance --> will of course mean a wedge is missing in azimuthal angle without this region covered.
Installation, assembly, and testing procedure
- Need draft of installation plan for the B0.
- What about stave assembly and testing?
- Planned to be at BNL, but if the B0 ends up being a different stave concept compared to Roman pots, can Israeli institutions potentially do B0 stave assembly and QA and then ship completed staves to BNL?
- Yulia: separate site could introduce new issues with equipment, personnel, costs, etc.
- Alex: agreed, but if equipment and personnel already exist at these institutions then we could mitigate risk by having some of the assembly + testing done there, given that B0 and Roman pots will have different testing requirements and potentially different PCBs (vaccum, kapton vs. air, FM-4, etc.).
- Yulia: also need this for EMCAL and need to ensure updated information does not conflict with existing information for QA planning, etc. (e.g. not have QA planning for B0 EMCAL which conflicts with plan for EEEMCAL, ZDC, etc.)
- same comment for the SiPMs.
We will plan to meet next week at the same time, and invite Guna to join us to answer some questions on the bellows.
There are minutes attached to this event.
Show them.
