Minutes of CALICE-UK Steering Board meeting, Birmingham, 04/11/02 ================================================================= Present: Roger Barlow, Paul Dauncey, Chris Hawkes, David Miller, Nigel Watson, David Ward Tables in PPRP draft; The information on effort and costs in the tables of the PPRP draft were gone through in detail. For the effort, table 1, the changes needed were: o) Nigel Watson will be moving to a post shared between Birmingham and RAL. The details still need to be finalised but this will allow him to remain on CALICE for the whole duration of the project. His funding source needs to be labelled at HEFCE/PPARC and some proportion of his cost will need to be added into the PPARC effort in table 3. The 0.7 of effort is correct and a statement summarising the above should be added to section 2.1. o) UCL would like to apply for a one-year extension of Stewart Boogert's post to cover the extra final year of the project. This would mean he would then move from 50% to 100% CALICE for this final year, changing his entry to 0.7 in FY04/05 and 0.3 in FY05/06 as the post would finish in summer 2005. It was agreed we would ask for this extension in addition to the new RA. The cost needs to be added to table 2. o) David Miller will retire in 2005 and so will need to be reduced to 0.3 in FY05/06. A statement saying that UCL intend to replace him with a lecturer for the LC should be added to section 2.1. o) Both Dave Mercer and Ray Thompson from Manchester should be labelled as PPARC funded; this was wrong in the original proposal too. Their costs need to be added to table 3. o) After discussions with Rob Halsall, RAL effort is likely to be 5 and 10 months engineering in FY02/03 and FY03/04, respectively, and 2 and 1 months layout. The numbers therefore will become 0.4, 0.8 and 0.2, 0.1. In addition, cases for the RA and Stewart's extension needed to be added to section A.1. The original proposal had travel at 42k/year and this was "felt to be high" by the PPRP. Despite this, it was decided that, with all the extra effort in the project, we should increase the figure (especially as it is likely we will be cut back anyway). A justification needs to be added to section A.2, but this should reduce the workshop part (as this is officially covered by group funds anyway). For FY02/03, we have spent around 2k so far. At 45k/year, in the four months after approval, we would spend 15k so 17k should be put for this year. A figure of 40k, rather than 30k, was felt appropriate for the longer duration of the beam test and this would be 30k in FY04/05 and 10k in FY05/06. New RA post; As UCL were bidding for the extension of Stewart's post, they were not considered as a possibility for the new RA. Imperial had already ruled themselves out as there was a lack of effort for supervision. This left Birmingham, Cambridge and Manchester. o) Birmingham are working on the Fluka/Geant comparisons. The RA would work directly with Nigel, either in this area or on energy flow algorithms. There is little other effort in either of these areas at Birmingham. Nigel will be sharing his time between Birmingham and RAL but the proportion at each place is not yet known. There is no obvious prospect of RAL PPD joining CALICE. o) Cambridge are working on the Geant3/Geant4 comparisons. The RA would work mainly with David Ward. Mark Thomson is also working on the detector performance, mainly on calorimetry, and so would be interested in energy flow algorithms, so this would also be a possibility. Chris Ainsley has not yet finished his thesis, but it seems likely he will work on online software rather than mainly on simulation studies. o) Manchester had two items; firstly working on Geant4 with John Allison and secondly looking at W_L scattering with Ian Duerdoth and Stefan Soldner-Rembold as well as Atlas people. This would therefore be mainly physics studies. However, Roger admitted that as the PPRP had specified the simulation studies work needed extra effort, the Manchester case would not be strong in their eyes, so he withdrew his bid. The most critical items for the simulation studies were identified as technical software development to bring the various simulation packages together, and a usable and flexible energy flow algorithm package which could be used in the UK. This latter is not only for evaluating the final physics potential of any calorimeter but also deciding which differences between simulation packages are important for physics. The former task was considered to require a large effort and would not really correspond to the work we had been intending to do. The energy flow was therefore seen as where the RA would have the most impact and both Birmingham and Cambridge felt they could supervise this work. The feeling of the meeting was that the PPRP would probably consider Cambridge to be the stronger institute, given the numbers in table 1, and so it would be more obvious to place the RA there. However, as Nigel is effectively working by himself at Birmingham, it is possible it might benefit the project more if it was there. Paul will contact the other SB members at UCL and Manchester and try to get a consensus on this within a day or so. PPRP draft; There was very little time left to discuss the PPRP draft. However, the UCL luminosity work was seen as looking like an add-on. The overlaps with the other simulation work should be emphasised; these are the technical development of the simulation program and the fact that the eventual calorimetry optimisation must take into account the luminosity requirements. We will not be doing an open presentation at the PPRP meeting but Paul would like to be sure that, unless they want to approve us immediately, we should be given an opportunity to discuss the proposal in a closed session. He will contact Neville about this. The PPRP meeting is likely to last two days, Dec 2 and 3, so people should try to keep these clear for a while. Paul will circulate an updated draft asap and would like all comments by next Mon 11 Nov. This will give us time to pass it by several people outside CALICE.