GLAST LAT Project Beam Test Meeting 1212006 Beam

GLAST LAT Project Beam Test Meeting 1/21/2006 Beam test activity in Italy • Integration & test activities – 1 x 1 tower completed and under test – CAL CPT rerun and understood – runs taken with different CAL configurations for NRL study on shaped readout noise (extra noise induced by readout if next event is triggered few microsecond after readout) • DAQ – External triggering not working: GASU and test box back at SLAC for check or replacement • Ancillary systems – Started discussion on test plan implications on ancillary systems and test setup (see slide 3) • Data simulations and analysis – Exercise production started almost everywhere using both beamtest 06 and standard Gleam – Evaluation of achievable target precision for specific measurements based on beam knowledge under way (compare to slide 4 table) • CU beam test Workshop at INFN-Pisa on 20 -21 march http: //glast. pi. infn. it/glastdocs/cernbeamtest/workshopstart. html – It will be a working meeting – Possibility to extend visit to work in specific areas (DAQ merge, datastream merge, integration and mechanics procedures, ACD location, simulation tutorials, analysis groups) L. Latronico 1

GLAST LAT Project Beam Test Meeting 1/21/2006 Data Acquisition TEM/TPS Easy to rotate – Carmelo rotated a 150 Kg CAL (inside) tower in less than a minute (180 degress Bay (outside) clock and counter-clock wise for fun) TKR House. Keeping PC VME PS Ext trigger box GASU L. Latronico Rotation stand – will extend to 1 x 4 Ethernet cables to DAQ and monitor PC 2

Particle Energy Area Ancillary systems Interest Notes g 50 Me. Vfew. Ge. V PS • Si-Tagger • CAL for tagger calibration • Anticoincidence scint. before CU • Beam dump to stop e- from hitting CU • PSF • TKR, CAL recon • Statistics required dependent on 1/E brems. spectrum • Need to change beam energy to avoid degrading resolution • High energy limited by bending power and hall depth e-, p- 1 -10 Ge. V PS • Cerenkov • EM/Had separation • CAL recon • Is there an energy range where Cerenkov are inefficient? • We will need to calibrate TRD anyway at PS so we might as well use it for PID • Coarse sampling for p Low energy hadrons (p, p, K) Up to few Ge. V (dependi ng on beam) PS • TOF for p (hard-to-fit and calibrate in T 9 area due to limited space) • Cerenkov for p • EM/Had separation • Backgnd rejection • Are p really needed or can we live with p-? • p require reverse beam polarity / need to identify proper target e+ Up to few Ge. V (dependi ng on beam) PS Cerenkov TRD • Backgnd rejection (e+ annihilation in ACD/thermal blanket) • require reverse beam polarity / need to identify proper target • 1 -2 mm Al from ISP different from 2. 5 g/cm 2 from ACD/thermal blanket/TKR sidewalls can provide variable Al spacers e-, p- 10300 Ge. V SPS • Cerenkov • TRD • EM/Had separation • CAL recon • ACD backsplash • need to evaluate beam composition to determine if TRD must be in trigger (if very few electrons) • coarse sampling for p Page Number All PS runs will require anticoicidence scintillators after CU to screen backsplash from rear wall L. Latronico

From LAT-TD-02152 -01 (under revision) Comparison with current expectations: • need to decide if p are really needed • not clear how many e+ we can have, but for most studies e- will do as well (e+ came from the original SLAC setup) • it will be hard to have 10 Ge. V tagged g, unless we keep the deviated ein the CU and maybe only study TKR (hard to separate g and e in the CAL) Page Number L. Latronico