Post CALICE thoughts

1. Post CALICE thoughts Paul Dauncey Paul Dauncey

2. Current situation • PPRP funded us for FY02/03, FY03/04 and FY04/05 • This takes us up to the end of March 2005 for travel funds • George Mavromanolakis’s RA post goes until August 2005 • We will need funding for two more FYs for CALICE work • No equipment or RAL effort should be needed in FY05/06 and beyond • Need travel for beam tests and analysis meetings • Need extension to George’s RA (and bid for any new RA’s?) • We need to go back to the PPRP within the next ~6 months • Would like some results to show from hardware if possible • Aiming for cosmics through at least 10 layers in Paris in Sep • DESY electron beam test (between 10 and 30 layers) in Nov/Dec • Suggest we aim for the PPRP in Oct, with cosmic data • What if ECAL further delayed; is Nov/Dec still OK? • Or better to go in Oct anyway? Paul Dauncey

3. Funding for future R&D • PPRP original expectation was that we would bid for longer term R&D funds when we returned this year • This was based on our (optimistic) schedule of physics in 2012, detector construction start in 2007 and prototyping start in 2005 • The LC project is clearly several (~3?) years later than this • Our (previous) expressed interest was electronics • Very dependent on warm/cold decision; won’t be made before PPRP • Can we sensibly bid for longer term R&D funds in ~6 months? • Can we feasibly come up with a convincing R&D project with reasonably firm costings by Oct? • Can we retain credibility and justify why we have not been able to do this? • I hope the answer to the second is “yes” and this would be the easier option right now • But the longer we leave this, the harder it will be to get a piece of the pie • What might we consider for longer term projects? Paul Dauncey

4. Some suggestions of possibilities My personal, non-complete list, starting from the front: • Mechanics: The French have serious designs and have done a lot of work; it would be hard to make an impact. Maybe the endcaps are different enough but this is less exciting (IMPO).  • Sensitive detectors: There are silicon wafer designs from Italy, US, Russia and the Czech Republic; again hard to make an impact.  BUT… we might want to consider alternative possibilities (see later)? • VFE electronics (i.e. on wafer): Again, the French are doing longer term developments already here and are quite far ahead (see the second half of Fleury’s talk at LCWS04)  However, this is an interesting area (IMPO) and there is some expertise in CALICE-UK so we might think of going into it anyway? (PTO) Paul Dauncey

5. Some suggestions of possibilities (cont) • FE electronics (i.e. off wafer but on detector): This is completely uncovered AFAIK and would be the “natural” place for us, given what we are doing now. There is also a lot of expertise in CALICE-UK in this area.  However, it will be very hard to nail down the specs for this for quite a while yet (and certainly not this year). See later for more details. • BE electronics (i.e. off detector): This is again an open area and is probably so intimately related to the FE electronics as to be done together.  • Software: The UK is leading this area within CALICE   But it would not be a credible bid alone. • HCAL: !?! A complete shift of emphasis; this is not so outrageous given that we are likely to be reading one of them out as well as the ECAL. The DHCAL is most interesting (IMPO) but unclear if any space left in electronics development. Paul Dauncey

6. Alternative sensitive planes • Could we look into alternatives to silicon pads? • A long shot but interesting if it produced anything • Plastic semiconductors • Potentially much cheaper (at least an order of magnitude) • Downsides are only thin sheets possible now, very slow drift times and low radiation hardness; useless for the LHC but maybe not for the LC? • Main problem for LC is thinness (~20mm?); signal too small. I have no idea if this is even vaguely soluble on a ten-year timescale. • Slow drift times are not so critical given LC bunch structure (particularly if warm machine) and radiation hardness probably only an issue in very forward endcaps. • Silicon pixels (e.g. MAPS) • Very fine pixel structure; e.g. 2020mm2 compared with 11cm2 pads • Potentially huge data volume; must be DECAL! • May be much better for tracking? Needs a lot of MC studies • Active group in the UK working on MAPS already Paul Dauncey

7. FE/BE electronics • Assumed to be small on-detector integrated electronics connected via fibres (?) to semi-custom off-detector board (i.e. PCI) going directly to off-the-shelf hardware (i.e. PC) • FE electronics is completely system specific • PCI card would be semi-generic for whole detector • The fast control and timing (FCT) must be intimately integrated into this system also • Want generic FCT electronics for whole detector • Sketch out possible solutions and R&D path to them • Two-way fibres? Ultra-high bandwidth fibres?? Wireless??? • FCT generic daughterboard to do clock/control • PCI card development to test rates, PC control, etc. • Could try to match up with French VFE chip developments • Not dissimilar to our original (Feb 2002) concept for the CALICE readout (before the French backed off)! Paul Dauncey