LCTPCLPWP5th phone meeting

1
LCTPC/LPWP-5th phone meeting

• Date 18 July 2006
• Time
• 2200 west coast
• 0100 east coast
• 0700 central Europe
• 1400 Japan
• next day
• To join, Dean has set up the US-based system
  this time
• Phone number 1 510-665-5437
• Meeting ID 52872
• Room at Vancouver SUB 211

2
Agenda for 5th WP phonemeetingThis
filehttp//www.mppmu.mpg.de/settles/tpc/lp/wpmt
g/wp5thmeeting18july2006r.ppt

• AGENDA
• -1.Status of the LCTPC/LP collaboration
• -2.WP meeting
• LP goals (Akira)
• Proposal for the electronics (Leif,Luciano,Madhu)
• More ideas on the endplates (Dan)
• -3.Future meetings
• -4.AOB

3

• AGENDA
• -1a.Formation of the LCTPC/LP collaboration
• Dean, Takeshi and RS have started working on
  this. First ideas
• 1)Three coordinators, one chosen by each region.
  These spokespersons (SP) would coordinate the
  work of the following two boards
• 2)The collaboration board (CB), consisting of the
  principle investigator (the group leader or other
  chosen member) from each group. Each CB member
  would take care of the resources for its group
  (money and people).
• 3)The technical board (TB), consisting of the
  existing workpackage (WP) conveners. The TB will
  ensure the technical integrity of their WP and
  compatibility with other WPs while maintaining
  close contact with the rest of the collaboration.

4

• AGENDA
• -1b.Formation of the LCTPC/LP collaboration
• The SP will ensure that the coordination between
  the CB and TB is efficient and the work is
  carried out in a timely fashion. We also
  discussed that the CB and TB may each appoint an
  a kind of executive committee to steer the work,
  since this is a job more efficiently done with a
  small number of people. Details on the exact
  structure and how the steering is to be done
  still have to be worked out (feedback is
  welcome), but first
• The interim-SP and the TB exist. A preliminary
  from of the CB is the groupleaders mailing list
  which evolved during the last couple of years.
  For this organizational work, we need a more
  official list of names, which was the subject of
  our 12 July email. Somewhat more than half have
  replied, so we need to get the rest in order to
  proceed. As soon as the full CB is known, we
  can start exchanging ideas between the SP, CB and
  TB.

5

• AGENDA
• -1c.Formation of the LCTPC/LP collaboration
• Therefore if your group has not yet done so,
  please send us the name of your CB representative
  (Jans terminology) a.s.a.p. I will circulate the
  list of names as soon as it is complete.
• Here are the groups who have replied up to now
  marked by ?

6
LCTPC/LP Groups (18 July 06)
Americas Carleton? Montreal Victoria? Cornell? I
ndiana? LBNL MIT Purdue Yale
Europe LAL Orsay IPN Orsay Saclay Aachen? Bonn? D
ESY? UHamburg? Freiburg? Karlsruhe MPI-Munich? Ros
tock Siegen? NIKHEF? UMM Krakow Bucharest Novosibi
rsk? PNPI StPetersburg Lund? CERN?
Asia Tsinghua CDC Hiroshima? KEK? Kinki U? Saga
? Kogakuin? Tokyo UAT? U Tokyo? U
Tsukuba? Minadano SU-IIT?
Other groups interested?
7

• Agenda
• -2a.Question on the goals for LP in and email
  from Akira since there are still different
  opinions (in preparation for the Paris endcap
  meetingsee below)
• My understanding about the LP that it is
• 1) the final prototype test to make sure the
  configuration will work for the LCTPC and
• 2) the first study model of real TPC.
• Item 1) must be focused on issues we could not
  conclude with small prototype tests, like
• effect of non-uniform magnetic/electric field,
• overall calibration,
• momentum resolution, etc
• From the view point of 2)
• a) the size of sector(?) module(?),
• b) how to install modules,
• c) mechanical structure of endplate,
• x) alignment of modules (I was thinking
  LP will be equipped with "realistic" size of
  module which must be determined by various
  points like a sector boundary, handling, repair,
  electronics.
• Anyway a), b), c) seem most important we should
  discuss at Vancouver.
• Dan pointed out during the discussion at the
  Vancouver meeting, that x) is equally important.

8

• Agenda
• -2b.Electronics ideas (Leif,Luciano)
• Reminder for Eudet
• 1000 altro channels available ------------12/2007
• Drawing of connector from Leif

9

• Agenda
• -2b.Electronics ideas (Madhu)
• Madhu at the meeting 06/07/2006

10
Madhu meanwhile wrote that option 1 was more
academic, and in reply to the summary of the last
meeting gt Digitized pulse shapes (2 above) could
be corrected 'offline' for geometrical effects. gt
(Note added this seems to say the the LCTPC
should not have a shaper integrator.) This is
what I have been saying for some time and this is
the only real option - directly digitize the
preamp charge pulse. The time scales are slow
enough so a 25 MHz digitizer could be
used. Direct preamp pulse digitization may
require a larger FADC dynamic range than if we
were to use a slow shaper integrator. 10 bit 25
MHz FADCs may still be adequate. But 12 bit FADCs
may be required. This is a matter of
simulation. I have consulted Jean-Pierre Martin.
Octal (8 per chip) 10 and 12 bit FADCs up to 50
MHz can be purchased for 10/channel. So
availability of faster FADCs with larger dynamic
range is not a issue. The main difficulty is
that heat load goes up with speed. This may
require power cycling which is already being
considered.
11
Madhu finally proposes for the LCTPC
electronics -preamp 25ns Trise (10-90) -no
shaper-integrator -25MHz 10to12-bit
FADC (2-track resolution can benefit from the
somewhat faster Trise if the noise is still
acceptable)
12

• Agenda
• -2c.Ideas for the endplate (Dan)
• Reminder most urgent point for LP is to design
  layout of endplate and finalize 12/2006
• Dan has prepared a file. See
• http//w4.lns.cornell.edu/dpp/linear_collider/in
  dex.html
• Click on ppt or pdf file under Latest talks
  18-July-2006 etc
• His file is included here for your convenience

13
Latest Drawings for a LP endplate
D. P. Peterson Cornell University,
Laboratory for Accelerator-based ScienceS and
Education
See also http//w4.lns.cornell.edu/dpp/linear_
collider/LargePrototype.html This project is
supported by the US National
Science Foundation (LEPP cooperative agreement)
and an LCDRD consortium grant
14
Endplate
15
Endplate
This is still the 10 pad-panel endplate (with 2
pixel panels) It will be possible to think about
a 5 or 6 panel endplate in August.
16
Endplate detail
17
Endplate detail
Module mating to mullion
Endplate mating to field cage
18
Bias surface
19
Module
Modifications
20
Module
o-ring seal
21

• AGENDA
• -6.Future meetings
• -At Vancouver, we should decide in addition
  decide frequency of next phonemeetings.
• After Vancouver there are (in addition to
  phonemeetings)
• -Paris Endcap meeting organized by Paul/Akira
  (12-15 September)
• -Eudet annual meeting MPI-Munich (18-20 October)
• -Valencia LC workshop (6-10 November)

22

• AGENDA
• -7.AOB

23


Back up slides, for reference
24
Akira Sugiyama GLD DOD
25
(No Transcript)
26
RS study - LDC DOD - together with Joel
Pouthas Philippe Rosier (IPN Orsay)
27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
Aleph Endplate
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36

• Some features
• Zigzag structure prevented loss of tracks gt ?22
• Sectors mounted from inside using a handling
  tool
• to minimize the dead space between sectors.
  This
• straight-forward operation which was
  performed
• at least 30 times during the lifetime of
  Aleph.
• Alu sandwich structure stiff, lightweight to
• - contain 7mb overpressure
• - provide forced-air thermal insulation
• between electronics and TPC volume
• Water cooling of 1kW electronics/side in addition
• - 22K channels per side
• Combination water/air cooling blocked all heat to
  TPC
• Overall thickness 25Xo (average) w/o cables
• Bending of endplate
• 20 micrometers due to 7mb overpressure
• 5 micrometers due to wire tension

37
RD Planning

• 1) Demonstration phase
• Continue work with small prototypes on mapping
  out parameter space, understanding resolution,
  etc, to prove feasibility of an MPGD TPC. For
  CMOS/Si-based ideas this will include a basic
  proof-of-principle.
• 2) Consolidation phase
• Build and operate the LP, large prototype, (Ø
  75cm, drift 100cm), with EUDET infrastructure
  as pedestal, to test manufacturing techniques
  for MPGD endplates, fieldcage and electronics.
  Design is starting---building and testing will
  take another 3 years.
• 3) Design phase
• After phase 2, the decision as to which endplate
  technology to use for the LC TPC would be taken
  and final design started.