1 / 12

Scrutineer Strategy for CDC Project Review Meeting at Jefferson Lab

A skeptical review of the CDC Project, focusing on conceptual, performance, and mechanical concerns to ensure project success and identify potential areas for improvement.

isha
Télécharger la présentation

Scrutineer Strategy for CDC Project Review Meeting at Jefferson Lab

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CDC Scrutineer Talk Elliott Wolin GlueX Collaboration Meeting Jefferson Lab 9-Sep-2004

  2. scrutineer n. a scrutinizer; specifically, an examiner of votes, as at an election. scrutinizer n : a careful examiner; someone who inspects with great care Scrutineer?

  3. Strategy • Assume role of a skeptical reviewer • Present list of questions/concerns not covered in Design Report and in DocDB • Please add to my list!

  4. But first… • I find the project in good shape • Confidence in CMU to solve remaining problems • Only concern is effectiveness of dE/dx in magnetic field, with real preamps, etc.

  5. Skeptical Reviewer’s Concerns • Conceptual • Performance • Mechanical • Services (gas,electrical,hv,etc.) • Onboard electronics • Reconstruction and Analysis

  6. Conceptual • No VTX implies need for re-optimization of STC/CDC/FDC geometry • New Cerenkov implies reevaluation of dE/dx requirements • Is prototype plan adequate…need more? In B field? • Why not resistive wires? • If dE/dx not needed skip ADCs? Or drift?

  7. Performance • Look at other gases? CO2 - long pulse, pile-up? • Understand aging better • Understand Lorentz angle effects better • Effect of breakdown, broken wire? • Verify dE/dx works in B field • Gain variations vs V, wire sag, gas purity, etc. • Cross talk – straws, preamps, via HV, etc. • Rate effects – V sag, preamps, x-talk, heat, signal pile-up, etc.

  8. Mechanical • Verification of matl’s, glue, techniques • Glue lifetime – radiation damage, etc. • Failure mode analysis • How to repair? Time? Replace wire? • Survey, align requirements? Plan? • Supports, stability, deflections, vibration? • QC (clean,glue,crimp,tension) – students? • Al vs Cu vs Au? mylar vs kapton? • Metal coating thickness, skin depth? • Are compound angle problems under control? • Interfaces, keep out zones, installation plan?

  9. Services • Gas distrib, uniform flow, purity, cleaning? • Room for cables, services? Mass? • HV dist, granularity, currents, cable type? • Discharges - HV cap, resistor size calc? • Power, heat, noise, shielding, grounding? • Is temperature rise a problem? Gas flow rate?

  10. Onboard Electronics • Preamp design? • Preamp mounting, power, heat, x-talk? • Cable type, quality, thickness, max length? • Signal shape variations? Shaping?

  11. Reconstruction and Analysis • Calib plan – special runs? Survey reqs? • Pat rec – spiraling tracks, bad straws, showers, event pileup, x-talk, ambiguities, • Track fitting – mult. scatt, dE/dx, Kalman filter? • What if no tagger info?

  12. Conclusions • CDC project in good shape • Some open questions • Some tests still needed • CMU headed in the right direction • Seem to have enough time, people, $$? • “Reviewer’s” questions should be satisfied by adequate documentation of past work, and planned future work

More Related