Notes on CALICE-UK OsC Meeting, Swindon, 28/11/06 ================================================= Mike Green and Paul Dauncey attended for CALICE. Overall, this was a much more positive meeting that the previous one. During the presentation by Paul (see web page) the following items were raised: o The OsC asked about plans to publish the beam test results. Given the ongoing beam tests planned for 2007, it would be tempting to not write up results from these data but to wait until after the 2007 data are taken. However, this would be a significant delay and we should aim for publications earier than this. There are milestones for publications in the WP1 Gantt chart. However, there a no definite CALICE-wide plans for publications, although there is a draft of an ECAL paper. o There was a discussion on other possibilities for reducing the effect of the signal loss in the MAPS sensors, such as allowing a larger inefficiency per layer (as it is less important in a calorimeter) or reducing the threshold to pick up the neighbours and then handle the extra noise hits in the DAQ. Another possibility would be to enlarge the pixel size to e.g. 100x100mu2 so the relative dead area is reduced. This would then give a higher rate of multiple hits per pixel which are only seen as one bit, leading to non-linear behaviour for high energy EM showers. Even then, software algorithms based on the local pixel hit density could mitigate these effects. These studies have not yet been done. The triple p-well solution is significantly better in several respects and will be pursued. o The possibility of testing the MAPS with a high rate monoenergetic gamma source should be considered. The issue is the trigger, which picks out a particular time bucket and hence reduces the noise which would otherwise be integrated over the whole (fake) bunch train. LCFI are using gamma sources for their work with (presumably) similar ILC bunch timing structures, so we should reconsider this option. o Kim Dollimore reported that the OsC should recommend use of the WA to PPARC, although Mike considered that this was not correct as we could decide when to use the WA, while the PPARC controls the contingency but will consult the OsC before agreeing to its use. This was not definitively clarified in the meeting, although Mike's information came from Janet Seed and so is likely to be correct. In any case, the OsC opinion on our use of the WA is useful. A discussion on the OsC questions and our answers included: o It is not clear how technologies would be selected for the final detectors This applies both to the ECAL in general as well as the MAPS vs diode pads. We reported the main physics driver is the hadronic jet resolution and for this, particle flow is a pattern recognition problem. WP5 is explicitly intending to study benchmark processes to see which are most sensitive to the calorimeter jet resolution and hence which are most useful for making technology choices. o The sign-off for the MAPS sensor testing was not clear. The performance criteria for the sensors is not well defined due to uncertainties in the ILC parameters and issues such as acceptable power budgets. A URL to the list of the working criteria were give in the written answers. The list of sensor tests was drawn up for the MAPS PDR and is quite comprehensive so measurements of the sensors against all such criteria are planned. O There is an issue with the Gantt charts about whether they should be updated to reflect the actual situation or whether they should preserve the original schedule and have the status recorded through the task progress fraction indicators and the comments. Kim Dollimore stated that the latter would be better so that a comparison to the original schedule could always be made. However, if there was a major change in a project such that the Gantt chart no longer bore any relation to reality, then it would be better to make an update. o The OsC seemed to have some concerns about WP4 in terms of how it can be monitored (by them and us). The Gantt chart, milestones and deliverables should be clarified. They may ask for a specific presentation on WP4 at the next meeting; we should be sure the WP4 section of the written submission is comprehensive. o There are standard PPARC format for milestones and we should copy our milestones to this format for the next meeting. o The risks tables should have a cost associated with each risk where sensible. Clearly some (e.g. the DHCAL not being built) do not imply a financial cost but loss of face and data. However, others (e.g. needing an extra round of MAPS fabrication) have clear costs. We should use our judgement and add a cost estimate to the "Comments" column of the risk tables where appropriate. o The outcome of the RG was announced since the last meeting. There were no major problems for CALICE in the outcome, although a post at RHUL shared with another experiment did not get the non-CALICE fraction funded after Sep08. Also, a shared Grid post at Imperial was lost which might have contributed to gridification of the CALICE software. Neither of these is critical for the CALICE work. o We need to add the WP managers' names to the Gantt charts but not names for each of the subtasks. After a closed discussion, the OsC reported back to us: o They were very encouraged by the news on the beam test. They urge us to publish the results as soon as possible, preferably before the start of the 2007 beam tests. o They fully support the development of the MAPS triple p-well process using the WA. o PPARC will see if there is a global solution to the issue of increased NI costs for RAL effort and we should not ask the engineers to reduce their effort as this sends the wrong signals. o Our report at the next meeting should be structured around the milestones which (should have) passed between now and then and the upcoming milestones for the six months following. o The written questions and answers were considered effective, so for the next meeting, the documentation will be required ~4 weeks before the meeting, with questions from the OsC being sent to us ~2 weeks before the meeting and our answers being returned ~1 week later, i.e. ~1 week before the meeting. The next meeting will be on Thu 28 June.