General EEEMCal Meeting Summary 11/18/22

From Cuawiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

PARTICIPANTS: Vladimir, Sasha, Carlos, Cristiano, Miroslav, Hamlet, Renee, Rosi, Tanja, Ioana, Julie, Justin,


  • SiPM installed with 3x3 PWO array
  • First beam result: 4.75 GeV beam energy the individual PWO tower energy resolution is ~3.2%
  • PCB development for matrix readout
  • board fabricated by JLab FEG
  • Prototype installed and first cosmics done - some alignment needed
  • first results expected in December, expect to finish the program in February 2023
  • Q&A
  • SciGlass test program will end in March 2023
  • SciGlass tests with light guide may be done by March, but due to availability of parts may also be later
  • PDE 18%, geometrical fill factor 31%: for one SiPM photon collection efficiency: 18% * 31% ~ 60%
  • benefitting from experience in HallD with SiPM, e.g, start counter and pair spectrometer
  • scan across the matrix is done with this beam test - not just hitting one point and so can also assess resolution in position (have fine resolution from hodoscope)


  • Last time defined preproposal organization structure
  • Important constraint: Need to have all documents for subward SPO/OSPs as soon as December 16th-22nd (CUA will accept document packages until 5 January). Please send packages etc. to Ralph Albano ( the CUA SPO and copy me. Ralph is also available to answer questions from your SPO/OSP offices as needed.
  • Pre-proposal overleaf is now available - Renee sent the link
  • Discussion about the global budget
  • Constraint given by NSF: total cost including contingency must not exceed $20million
  • Contingency has been calculated from basis of estimate: engineering estimate ~30%, vendor quotes ~20%, previous experience ~20%, catalog ~10%.
  • Two global budget models for the NSF proposal are presented - in both cases a hardware component is assigned to each institution based on their responsibility area, and taking into account available infrastructure (e.g., mechanical W&M and MIT) and guidance from NSF, e.g., large subaward to EPSCOR institution
  • Model 1: Covering electron-going direction with EMCals (PWO + SciGlass)
  • close to ceiling with materials alone
  • still need final estimates for mechanical
  • assumes an electron-going part of the full barrel starting around eta=0 and going into the negative eta (electron) direction
  • Model 2: Covering electron-endcap with EMCals (PWO)
  • still need final estimates for mechanical
  • debate if the full amount of crystals should be included here (this would make the NSF project independent of crystal re-use and provide sufficient spares)
  • Both models have a good case for justification - Model 2 may be cleaner within the guidance of NSF and has a very well defined focus
  • The case for Model 1 would need to be made very clearly
  • Model 2 fits well into the NSF given budget envelope and allows for including additional funds for setting up test stands at the universities
  • Final decision of 5 out of 9 institutions participating in the NSF proposal is in favor of Model 2. International institutions and National Labs abstained in this vote.
  • Action items: see slides