Dear Colleagues,
these are the minutes of the 2nd prepatorial meeting of the 28/7/09 5am UTC
Present: J. Yu, M. Demarteau, F. Richard, V. Boudry, N. Graf, K. Kawagoe, R.P.
Contribution by E-Mail: T. Nelson
Talks provided by: M.Wing, F. Gaede (presented by N. Graf)
Please find an updated agenda draft based on today's discussion under
http://ilcagenda.linearcollider.org/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=3735
- Workshop Document:
Marcel raised the question to whom the workshop document is to be presented. The tentative audience are lab directors of test beam sites, the ILC Detector R&D Panel but also funding agencies to prove the structured approach
of the ILC detector R&D
Agenda:
=======
- Opening session
In general it was felt that the Opening session should contain a review on achievements in earlier test beam efforts in terms of highlights in results, publications (papers and theses) and in terms of what the facilities have provided to
support ILC related test beam efforts. Whether this achievement part will be split into on or two parts is still open.
These talks will be covered by the LC testbeam working group.
Marcel has agreed to find a speaker for a talk on the roadmap of ILC detector R&D and the role of testbeams (i.e.
issues which have to be addressed by the test beam programs)
In general the opening session should fit into two hours max.
- Review session
This session is cancelled to give more room for the sud-detector sessions
- Sub-detector sessions
Here the plans of the different R&D projects grouped by detector types (Calo, Tracking) are to be presented.
Speakers are asked to include also a short review part in their sessions on goods and bads which have been encountered (This part may need to be synchronized with the review in the Opening session).
The plans should include a time schedule, a perspective on beam conditions needed to conduct their tests but also a kind of wishlist of (software) tools which are may needed to conduct the tests. As several groups may have test beams shortly before or shortly after the sessions, these lists might also include items which need to be changed on a short time scale
A clear guideline concerning Si Vertex tracking was given this morning in a mail by Tim which I include in these minutes
... snip
I have been thinking about the key issues for ILC test beam in vertexing and inner tracking and how they impact the structure of the workshop, and while I think many of my concerns have been addressed in some way by others, I have some opinions that I don't see obviously represented in any comments already made.
There are obvious points of view here: that of the groups doing detector R&D and that of the test beam providers. Clearly I am more familiar with the former, and it is that work which justifies the entire enterprise, so it makes sense to begin there.
To be frank, in the time period 2010-2011 there is precious little that groups doing vertexing and tracking R&D truly need a test beam for. This will undoubtedly be an unpopular opinion, but I believe it to be true. At this stage, working with early sensor prototypes, the focus is on basic detector function, development of robust, low-noise readout, power pulsing, and basic noise studies. All of these things are done well enough (or even best) in a more controlled environment; standalone, with a source, or using a laser to stimulate the detector. Even some basic resolution studies can be accomplished in this way, but creating a realistic scenario for measuring single-hit precision is usually what ultimately brings this R&D from the lab to the test beam.
On the face of it then, the first test beams will have their centerpiece the measurement of resolutions. However, the more important piece which isn't often explicitly stated because it is difficult to formulate precisely before the fact. That piece is demonstrating that the performance of the device that has been carefully honed and tweaked in the controlled environment of the lab can be replicated in the "dirty" environment of the test beam with minimal shielding from unknown noise sources, experimentally realistic grounding schemes and cable lengths, as well as external timing constraints. Simply operating in a real environment is where most of the hard lessons are learned, regardless of the stated purpose. For this reason, I think the groups doing R&D need to consider what is important in creating a realistic operating environment for them: it may be quite different depending upon the technology of the devices under test.
In the longer term, 2012-2013 and beyond, the questions will remain the same but the level of realism changes significantly. How will full slices of the detector operate at full rates and occupancies? How will pulsed power for a full slice work in high magnetic fields? Will mechanical structures be stiff enough / have good enough damping so that stability is not a resolution issue? What measurement techniques will be used to verify this (beam telescope? interferometry?) The devices under test become very sophisticated and the beam optimally needs to be quite flexible in operation: both are difficult. Again... while the stated purpose is often some measurement like resolution, the failures are usually much more spectacular than simply inadequate resolution and the groups need to consider what makes these tests "real enough" to prove that their concepts work.
So, as to how this guides the structure of the workshop, at least from the point of view of vertexing and tracking. First, I would like to hear from each major R&D effort what they consider to be fundamental to their goals in each of these time periods, with special attention to the attributes of the test setup (and therefore the facility) that make the test "real enough" to convince them that their devices meet the requirements of the detector concepts. Then, I would like to hear from the test beam facilities the key attributes of their facilities and how they imagine providing for the needs stated by the R&D groups. I imagine that there will be some clear disconnect between the various viewpoints and this makes a good starting point for discussions about what is truly needed and how to create common ground among the groups.
I hope these comments are somewhat useful to you in your discussions tomorrow in case I am not able to connect. Please feel free to forward them to others as you see fit.
Cheers,
Tim
snip ...
- DAQ and software
From the meeting I had the impression that these topics are particularly important.
- DAQ
Focus is to be made on the interoperability between different DAQ systems, e.g. at which point a calorimeter
DAQ and Tracker DAQ can be harmonised
My impression when it comes to talks is that we should schedule 4 talks a 15 Min. in which the DAQ systems
Calo, TPC, Si Tracking (Central and Vertex) are presented and the speakers are asked to mutually inform
themselves before about the features of the other systems in order to point out fields of interoperability.
- Software
This is to a large extend the bracket for all the test beam efforts. The session need an overview
on tools which are available but also should identify open fields (event displays, data bases which are
of particular importance for test beam data taking), also event displays. The workshop can maybe lead to
the establishment of a group which act as an interface between the main developers and the test beam
groups.
Concerning data processing and in particular management, the grid has a central role and should be
represented at the workshop.
- Test beam facilities
On the meeting we have agreed to place the session on test beam facilities after the detector plans session in order to give the representants a chance to react to the formulated plans a wishlists.
- Resources and Infrastructure for future Testbeams
This session was earlier called 'Combined test beams' and has a wider scope now. Why Marcel has ageed to
organise (or largely help to organise) this session, I would like to summarise the topics which have to be addressed.
i) Human and Funding resources for test beams
This includes a presentation of the DevDet2 proposal (EU call aiming at 'integrating the key research infrastructures in Europe for the development of advanced detector technologies' (Proposed speaker L. Serin (LAL)
ii) Establishment of ILC test beam areas
- I think this would be very useful as it clearly saves a lot of time to use a beam line which is already
understood and allow for a lot of collaboration beyond detector and concept boundaries.
iii) Combined test beams
Perspective of what can be combined and when.
Further topics are welcome.
- Closing session
Jae suggested to have a real closing session with summary talks by the session convenors. Such a session
makes sense as it may already include issues which will emerge at the workshop.
- Next prepatorial meeting
We have agreed to have another prepatorial meeting at the *beginning* of September. We may use this meeting
to have a first well educated agenda draft, i.e. the convenors are asked to list the talks which they would like to have in 'their' sessions, if possible already in combination with assigned speakers. At this point don't take the
time slots too seriously, we can use the meeting to harmonise the agenda. If possible the drafts of the sessions
agenda should be integrated into the agenda before the actual meeting such that we have the agenda in one view, The conveners should have access to the workshop agenda, if not please tell me in advance.
We will still have the face to face meeting at the ALCPG09 workshop.
There are minutes attached to this event.
Show them.
