1. D.Websdale: RICH Meeting 10-11-99 1 LHCb RICH group meeting: Wednesday 10th November, in B40-SS-C01 at 14:00. Agenda: 1. The Photodetector Panel’s proposition for a recommendation to the TB D.Websdale, for the Panel 2. Discussion 3. Invitation to RICH group to endorse this proposal

2. D.Websdale: RICH Meeting 10-11-99 2 Photodetector Choice Panel* nominated to prepare RICH group’s recommendation to Technical Board Performance criteria Costs, Resources Risks……. Progress 3 proposal documents written Baseline Specifications defined: detector, electronics, mounting / integration Results from R&D and beam tests Future R&D requirements Panel Reports on Performance studies (simulation) Readout electronics Mounting/Integration Costs / Risks Timetable 2 RICH group meetings: 3,10 November TB Review Decision LHCb Collab. Week, December. * J.Bibby, R.Forty, C.Joram, T.Gys, F.Muheim, O.Ullaland, D.Websdale, T.Ypsilantis

3. D.Websdale: RICH Meeting 10-11-99 3 Performance studies Input Parameters Pixel size Tube layout Photocathode response Chromatic dispersion Signal / Noise Dark count Effects due to backscatter Photoelectron detection efficiency Effects due to charged particles Performance Indicators Photon yields Cherenkov angle precision PID matrices vs momentum pi-K separation vs momentum 2-body decay channels K-tags Ds pi vs Ds K (in progress) For each Photodetector specification a full RICH simulation, including pattern recognition, is carried out for different physics channels Physics Performance for all three devices is very similar see G.Wilkinson’s presentation 3.11.99

4. D.Websdale: RICH Meeting 10-11-99 4 Readout Electronics For each Photodetector option the proposed readout chain is specified All satisfy the LHCb requirements Provide input to Cost tables and Risks assessment see J.Bibby’s presentation 3.11.99 Photodetector mounting/integration For each Photodetector option the proposed mounting is specified The different requirements are judged to be mechanically and electrically feasible, with no significant cost differences see O.Ullaland’s presentation 3.11.99

5. D.Websdale: RICH Meeting 10-11-99 5 Total Cost: Photodetectors and Readout

6. D.Websdale: RICH Meeting 10-11-99 6 Tasks requiring human resources, not included in Cost Estimate: PAD Pixel PMT

7. D.Websdale: RICH Meeting 10-11-99 7 Risk Assessment

8. D.Websdale: RICH Meeting 10-11-99 8 To present the TB with the Reports on Performance Analysis Baseline Readout Electronics Photodetector mounting/integration To report that these criteria gave no clear indicator as to the best technology choice To present cost estimates and risk assessments To state the opinion of the panel that there are no “show stoppers”, and that all options could be made to work, given time. To report the consensus of the panel that the risk assessments of the three options were graded in reverse order of the costs Choice requires a balance of Risks and Costs, and perhaps other non-technical criteria Implies the involvement of the LHCb Management Panel’s Report to Technical Board

9. D.Websdale: RICH Meeting 10-11-99 9 To adopt as baseline photodetector the device with the lowest acceptable risk that is within the LHCb RICH budget. In the event that this implies one or other of the HPDs being selected, the MaPMT should be maintained as a backup. This implies the setting of rigourous milestones for the baseline and a well-focussed activity to ensure the MaPMT remains a viable backup, consistent with the LHCb schedule. Proposed Recommendation to Technical Board by majority (4/5) of panel (non-proponents)