General EEEMCal Meeting Summary 11/18/22
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
PARTICIPANTS: Vladimir, Sasha, Carlos, Cristiano, Miroslav, Hamlet, Renee, Rosi, Tanja, Ioana, Julie, Justin,
SIPM PROTOTYPE UPDATE
- 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)
DISCUSSION EEEMCAL PREPROPOSAL
- 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 (albano@cua.edu) 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
NEXT MEETING: FRIDAY 2 DECEMBER AT 8:00AM ET