Choose timezone
Your profile timezone:
Powered by Indico
v3.3.2
In attendance: Alexander Kiselev, Astrid Morreale, Carlos, Dave Gaskell, Domenico Elia, Elke Aschenauer, Ernst Sichtermann, Holger Witte, John Arrington, Julia Furletova, Ken Barish, Kondo Gnanvo, Leo Greiner, Paul Brindza, Ruben Fair, Salvatore Fazio, Silvia Dalla Torre, Thomas Hemmick, Will Brooks, Xuan Li.
Become central place where detector concepts shaping up.
Alexander sent long email . First agenda item. Second topic is Astrid’s
1. Went over slide 1 from April 15
There are no experts in integration and complementarity, so we need to have these meetings.
Solenoid requirements document not ready yet because more effort is needed. Document to be shared between conveners and community is almost ready.
Q: do we have a date for availability of that document? A. couple of days, but want to iterate with some people first to avoid propagation of misinformation.
2. Went over slide 2 from April 15
Kolia’s email of a couple of days ago - the first set of eic-smear parameterizations (based to a large extent on the Handbook numbers) is available.
Complementarity group conveners+us: can spend part of Wednesday meetings on focused discussions suggested by the community. Examples:
We formulate these topics in advance, so that upcoming meetings agendas are planned in advance and concise talks can be prepared. Such talks can also become a short memo-like document.
"3D view" from several perspectives on these topics.
Example: silicon trackers as discussed in the tracking subgroup.
Electron ID is an example of a topic that does not have direct responsibility of one working group.
(see topics from slide)
Space allocations?
Last slide:
See last slide plus email for details
Detector projectivity?
Pseudorapidity boundaries are the appropriate ones?
The community should define topics and priorities.
Can have brainstorming now, organized sessions later.
Space limitations from mixing projective and not projective. JLEIC detector is example.
Ernst: timing requirements are different for Roman pots and the central region.
A time-of-flight for Roman pots is connected to the width of the proton bunch. Central rapidities: electron bunch plays more of a role.
This is one of the topics which was not considered in combination with all the rest. ERD24 discussed this, formulated the design of the Roman Pots.
How to fix crabbing issues is also connected.
Another example: how to define pseudo rapidity in view of the existence of a crossing angle?
Silvia: on Monday were discussing at Pavia meeting to have overlapping expertise, not in pure parallel session, but to have mixed sessions to understand items in common or in-between.
A.: not exactly the same in that there should be even greater diversity of the participants than to have only two or three groups mixed.
Integration and Complementarity should be
Q: Tom: is it too early to have joint tracking and PID meeting here? in 2 weeks, 30-45 minutes of joint discussions?
A. reasonable proposal if you manage to blend in physics studies as well. Not clear that it’s only a technical discussion.
Example of 1 mrad requirement in historical example.
Physics studies must inform the definition of requirements.
How to distinguish which topics are Complementarity and which are Integration?
Elke: see if there is physics that cannot be realized in one detector configuration. There are still not enough requirements provided from the physics studies.
She has another item: yesterday in Calo meeting - minimum energy that can be detected? would be good to collect in general for all physics studies.
Detector groups: are there contradictory requirements?
A. If we could have well-parameterized models of some detectors then physics groups could come up with responses as to which fits their needs.
It would be beneficial to have documented chains of reasoning behind the requirements, e.g. a 1-page writeup.
Detector matrix.
Concerning the topical discussions: should we send emails to wider group to collect proposals? Would be better to collect requests from broader community.
Tom: assigning homework to groups is necessary. E.g. joint tracking and PID; send them a list of questions. A. we should act in close cooperation with top conveners. Tom: if we have model where joint working groups take part of these meetings, need to make sure the agenda contains broad enough topics.
A. consider this as a use case, coordinate with top conveners, some physics groups, etc. to produce list of points to address. Silvia: this is not a duplication of the plan for the Pavia meeting, let’s see how it goes.
A. Do in parallel: conveners of the groups make list of topics, we can think of our list, top conveners make their list, and compare notes.
Astrid presentation:
quick b-field evaluation of charged tracks at forward rapidity
look at effects of z value of the three disks
She used EICRoot
TPC is shown only for scale, not used.
She sees a clear separation between 1.5 and 3 T configurations.
She moved disks along z to see the effect.
2 degrees to 10 degrees in scattering angle - she used a range.
Then she tried asymmetric z locations of disks
A. we know how much space is required for many of the detectors are. These impose boundary constraints on such studies as this. Would be good to do the study with these constraints imposed. Cannot put the disks inside the RICH for example. Astrid: this just a beginning. We can impose the space limitations. How far in pseudo rapidity can we go - 4.0?
Another comment: tracking information should be helpful to RICH, that’s why they are behind the RICH.
A.: IR assumes a 20 mrad cone opening beam pipe in th ehadron-going direction. Compatible with 4.0, but 4.5 will probably be inside the beam pipe infrastructure.
Elke: the beam pipes for the two beams will limit the pseudo rapidity, probably to 4.0. A 4-pi detector is not possible. All holding structures will take up space. She thinks 4.0 is the rapidity limit.
Elke: this study shows that if we have complementary magnetic fields, makes it clear that detector placement has to be thought of separately for the two fields.
A. We will start to populate the available space with required objects, starting from the beamline. This will limit the available space for remaining detectors.
Xuan Li: we are studying the forward tracking geometry options.
Ernst: integration was not limited to central tracker, included forward tracking too.
Most tracking is achieved by barrel layers. First point often picked up in barrel, followed by disks. This is an integration question because services need to be taken into account.
A. If you consider a 62 mm beam pipe, aligned with outgoing electron direction, scattered electron exits beam pipe at 90 cm for eta = -4. Not possible to have a barrel hit under that circumstance.
Ernst: 62 mm beam pipe is too big. This has serious implications for vertexing.
A. Good topic for topical meeting. "What are the unavoidable limitations for the vacuum system design?"
A. Action items: we have a couple of these.