1. 1 Jim Thomas - LBL The STAR Heavy Flavor Tracker An Update and Progress Report Jim Thomas Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory March 6 th, 2012

2. 2 Jim Thomas - LBL The Light Quark Program at RHIC is Compelling Lattice results Its hot Its dense and it flows at the partonic scale  and , too! Spectra VnVn Jets & R cp The evidence for a low viscosity, strongly interacting QGP is overwhelming, especially after QM 2011 (v 3, v n wow …!!)

3. 3 Jim Thomas - LBL Where do we go from here? The Beam Energy Scan has been and will continue to be extraordinarily productive –Alexander Schmah “Elliptic Flow of Identified Particles in Au+Au Reactions at √s NN = 7.7-62.4 GeV” … a tour de force Heavy Flavor –Elliptic flow for Charm is the smoking gun for thermalization at RHIC –Heavy Flavor energy loss … still a bit mysterious –Clear separation of Charm and Beauty by the topological reconstruction of events will enable a new range of precision

4. 4 Jim Thomas - LBL HFT Charm Where does all the Charm go?

5. 5 Jim Thomas - LBL Opening the Heavy Flavor Sector When RHIC turned on … Strange quarks were “heavy and exotic” –We built a Si vertex tracker to locate strange mesons and baryons –This turned out to be too easy to do with the TPC, alone –Kaons, Lambdas, Omegas, Phi and even the Cascade –Cross sections, Flow, R aa and more Now we want to re-define “heavy and exotic” and go after the Charm quark –Some success already with non-photonic electrons (leptonic and semi-leptonic decays) –Topological reconstruction of open Charm is better. Requires a new high resolution Si detector. Of course, at the LHC the definition of “heavy and exotic” is quite different. The yield of charmed mesons is greatly enhanced and so they are not exotic. B decays may be “rare and exotic” for ALICE … but maybe not.  s can do magical things …. –Note that some success with Upsilon’s at RHIC. Upsilon suppression reported by STAR at QM 2011 using non-photonic electrons.

6. 6 Jim Thomas - LBL The HFT – Signature Physics Measurements hello DOE milestone for 2016: “Measure production rates, high pT spectra, and correlations in heavy-ion collisions at √s NN = 200 GeV for identified hadrons with heavy flavor valence quarks to constrain the mechanism for parton energy loss in the QGP.” Charmed Hadron v 2 using 200 GeV Au+Au minimum bias collisions (500M events) Charm-quark flow  Thermalization of light-quarks Charm-quark does not flow  Drag coefficients

7. 7 Jim Thomas - LBL Non-photonic electrons decayed from charm and beauty hadrons At p T ≥ 6 GeV/c, R AA (n.p.e.) ~ R AA (h ± ) A surprising result The HFT – Heavy Quark Energy Loss Here is what we can do with the HFT using topological ID of open charm R CP STAR PRL 98 (2007) 192301 and Erratum

8. 8 Jim Thomas - LBL The HFT: The Challenge The STAR HFT has the capability to reconstruct the displaced vertex of D 0   K  (B.R 3.8%, c  = 123  m) Λ c   Kp (B. R. 5.0%, c  = 59.9  m) and more … Primary Challenges –Neutral particle decay –Proper lifetime, c , 123  m –Find a common vertex away from the primary vertex –Identify daughters, measure p T, and reconstruct the invariant mass Topological Reconstruction of Open Charm

9. 9 Jim Thomas - LBL The Heavy Flavor Tracker: Location inside the TPC hello PXLISTSSD TPC 4 m

10. 10 Jim Thomas - LBL The HFT – The configuration SSD IST Pixel Detector 10 20 30 -30 -10 -20 0 Centimeters Beampipe The HFT puts 4 layers of Silicon around the vertex Provides 8  m space point resolution @ 2.5 cm 30  m vertex resolution @ 1 GeV, 10  m @ 5 GeV Works at high rate (~ 800 Hz – 1K) Does topological reconstruction of open charm Will be ready for the 2014 run

11. 11 Jim Thomas - LBL Tracking: Getting a Boost from the TPC The TPC provides good but not excellent resolution at the vertex and at other intermediate radii ~ 1 mm The TPC provides an excellent angular constraint on the path of a predicted track segment –This is very powerful. –It gives a parallel beam with the addition of MCS from the IFC The best thing we can do is to put a pin-hole in front of the parallel beam track from the TPC –This is the goal for the Si trackers: SSD, IST, and PXL The SSD and IST do not need extreme resolution. Instead, the goal is to maintain the parallel beam and not let it spread out –MCS limited –The PXL does the rest of the work TPC MCS Cone VTX The Gift of the TPC OFC IFC

12. 12 Jim Thomas - LBL The performance of the TPC acting alone The performance of the TPC acting alone depends on the integration time of the PXL chip P(good association) = 1 / (1+S) where S = 2   x  y  Integration Time (  sec) Single Layer Efficiency The purpose of intermediate tracking layers is to make 55% go up to ~100% Note that the hard work gets done at PXL layer 2. This is a surprise.

13. 13 Jim Thomas - LBL The performance of the TPC + SSD + IST The performance of the TPC + SSD or TPC + IST acting together depends on the integration time of the PXL chip … but overall the performance is very good P(good association) = 1 / (1+S) where S = 2   x  y  Integration Time (  sec) Single Layer Efficiency Random errors only included in hand calculations and in GEANT/ITTF simulations

14. 14 Jim Thomas - LBL The HFT – Pixel Technology Unique Features –20.7 x 20.7  m pixels –100-200  sec integration time –436 M pixels –0.37% X/X 0 per layer –Install and Replace in 8 hours News –Change in process: now using 400  cm moderate Resistivity Si –Depletion voltage ~1V –Better signal to noise and higher radiation tolerance >300 kRad, 10 14 n/cm 2 –Don’t have to replace the detector every year Now using high resistivity Si which allows for a biased depletion region (previously relied upon diffusion to collect the charge) 22 cm 14 cm 8 cm 2.5 cm. HFT Si SSD IST PXL2 PXL1

15. 15 Jim Thomas - LBL Smart Pixels make the HFT unique High efficiency detector wants high resistivity Si, CMOS cheap, Smart electronics wants low resistivity Si for logic circuits

16. 16 Jim Thomas - LBL Exploded view of the HFT inside the TPC TPC Volume OFC Outer Field Cage IFC Inner Field Cage SSD IST PXL FGT HFT

17. 17 Jim Thomas - LBL The “cone” assembly is removable (annually) Forward GEM Tracker Silicon Strip Detector (IST and HFT underneath) Mechanics and electronics to support the HFT are underneath 4.2 Meters ~ 1 Meter The SSD: 20 ladders located at a radius of 22 cm Double sided Si strips, 95  m pitch, 4 cm long, crossed at 35 mrad The electronics on each end of the ladder are to be upgraded

18. 18 Jim Thomas - LBL The Old Silicon Strip Detector

19. 19 Jim Thomas - LBL SSD Electronics New Ladder Card (left) Large FPGA on board Associated RDO in development Prototypes exist, moving to pre-production phase Trying to make it all fit Goal: DAQ rate from 200 Hz  1 kHz

20. 20 Jim Thomas - LBL Cone Installation Cones installed Fall 2012 Shroud and OSC in place Length ~4 m, Radius ~90 cm SSD will sit on OSC 20 refurbished ladders around the circumference Al mylar wrap covers the region over the SSD and between the shrouds

21. 21 Jim Thomas - LBL Exploded view of the HFT inside the TPC TPC Volume OFC Outer Field Cage IFC Inner Field Cage SSD IST PXL FGT HFT

22. 22 Jim Thomas - LBL Prototype IST Staves (January 2012) 24 Staves at 14 cm radius Intermediate between TPC/SSD and PXL Prototype with Si modules and APV readout chips Wire bonding is a success Readout and electronics very similar to FGT

23. 23 Jim Thomas - LBL -1 ≤ Eta ≤ 1, full Phi coverage (TPC coverage) ≤ 30 µm DCA pointing resolution required for 750 MeV/c kaon –Two or more layers with a separation of > 5 cm. –Pixel size of ≤ 30 µm –Radiation length as low as possible but should be ≤ 0.5% / layer (including support structure). The goal is 0.37% / layer Integration time of < 200 μs Sensor efficiency ≥ 99% with accidental rate ≤ 10 -4. Survive radiation environment. Air cooling Thinned silicon sensors (50 μm thickness) MAPS (Monolithic Active Pixel Sensor) pixel technology –Sensor power dissipation ~170 mW/cm 2 –Sensor integration time < 200 μs (L=8×10 27 ) Quick extraction and detector replacement (1 day) PXL Requirements and Design Choices Requirements Design Choices

24. 24 Jim Thomas - LBL Pixel support structure near the vertex 2.5 cm radius 8 cm radius Inner layer Outer layer End view Carbon fiber support beams (green) Two “D” sectors form the heart of the PXL detector. The two halves separate in order to allow for easy access, removal and repair.

25. 25 Jim Thomas - LBL Hinge detail Parallelogram hinges support the two detector halves while sliding Cam and follower controls the opening of the hinges during insertion and extraction Detector support transfers to kinematic dock when positioned at the operating location pixel support hinges cam followers and linear cam slide rails sliding carriage Reason for no bottom Beam Pipe support… kinematic dock

26. 26 Jim Thomas - LBL HFT PXL status – fabrication and tooling

27. 27 Jim Thomas - LBL Recent Progress – on many different scales PXL Insertion and Test Bed for installing the PXL detector into STAR –Most Al parts become C fiber in the real thing A Hallmark of LBL Instrumentation is that things get tested before they are installed PXL Ladder “Cable” –  2.5 cm by 30 cm –Chips will go on lower 20 cm portion –Prototype in Cu –Final in Al to lower mass of ladder

28. 28 Jim Thomas - LBL The PXL Engineering Run (Run 13) We are planning on a partial installation of PXL ladders for Run 13 –No SSD –No IST Primarily an engineering run to test the PXL electronics and mechanics –Some physics may be possible –less efficient Mercedes Patch Joined Patch

29. 29 Jim Thomas - LBL D 0 simulations by Jonathan Bouchet D 0 input –50k D 0 –0 < p T < 10 –-3 <  < 3 –Basic cuts (p T > 0.1,  < 1 ) 13K survive D 0 output –Mercedes 970 events –Joined 333 events

30. 30 Jim Thomas - LBL Run 13 Engineering Run – Prospects for Physics D 0 acceptance as a function of p T and patch geometry Overall breakdown and summary of acceptance Note: this does not include TPC tracking inefficiency nor p T dependent software cuts on the kinematics of the D 0 … so the real world will be even more difficult

31. 31 Jim Thomas - LBL PXL Detector Characteristics Pointing resolution (12  19 GeV/p  c)  m LayersLayer 1 at 2.5 cm radius Layer 2 at 8 cm radius Pixel size 20.7  m X 20.7  m Hit resolution 6  m Position stability 6  m rms (20  m envelope) Radiation length per layerX/X 0 = 0.37% Number of pixels356 M Integration time (affects pileup) 185.6  s Radiation environment20 to 90 kRad 2*10 11 to 10 12 1MeV n eq/cm 2 Rapid detector replacement~ 1 day 356 M pixels on ~0.16 m 2 of Silicon!

32. 32 Jim Thomas - LBL Summary The HFT will explore the Charm sector at RHIC We will do direct topological reconstruction of Charm Our measurements will be unique at RHIC The key measurements include –V 2 –Energy Loss –Charm Spectra, R AA & R cp –Vector mesons –Angular Correlations The technology is available on an appropriate schedule

33. 33 Jim Thomas - LBL Backup Slides

34. 34 Jim Thomas - LBL FY09FY10FY11FY12FY13FY14FY15 HFT Construction HFT Operation MTD Construction MTD Operation HLT Development HLT Operation Finish HFT in time for the 2014 run Finish MTD project by Mar, 2014 and make 80% of the full system ready for year 2014 run HLT is seeking funds but is projected to be under development through FY15, and will be available for physics at all times Three STAR Upgrade Projects

35. 35 Jim Thomas - LBL Radiation Load expected in 2014 Rad cm 2.5 14.022.02.5 1422 # of wks Phys krad Phys + UPC krad Phys krad Ramp and Total krad Ramp and Total n/cm 2 Ramp and Total krad 200 GeV Au + Au Max 1228.359.80.90.488.0 1.1E+12 1.80.7 Au + Au Min 125.311.30.20.116.6 0.2E+12 0.30.1 500 GeV p + p Max 12133.3 4.31.7266.7 5.3E+12 8.53.4 p + p Min 1228.9 0.90.457.8 1.1E+12 1.80.7

36. 36 Jim Thomas - LBL Efficiency Calculations in a high hit density environment The probability of associating the right hit with the right track on the first pass through the reconstruction code is: P(good association) = 1 / (1+S) where S = 2   x  y  P(bad association) = (1 – Efficiency) = S / ( 1 + S ) and when S is small P(bad association)  2   x  y   x is the convolution of the detector resolution and the projected track error in the ‘x’ direction, and  is the density of hits. The largest errors dominates the sum  x =  (  2 xp +  2 xd )  y =  (  2 yp +  2 yd ) Asymmetric pointing resolutions are very inefficient … try to avoid it

37. 37 Jim Thomas - LBL TPC Pointing at the PXL Detector The TPC pointing resolution on the outer surface of the PXL Detector is greater than 1 mm … but lets calculate what the TPC can do alone –Assume the new radial location at 8.0 cm for PXL-2, with 9  m detector resolution in each pixel layer and a 200  sec detector –Notice that the pointing resolution on PXL-1 is very good even though the TPC pointing resolution on PXL-2 is not so good The probability of a good hit association on the first pass –55% on PXL2 –95% on PXL1 RadiusPointResOn (R-  ) PointResOn (Z) Hit Density 8.0 cm1.4 mm1.5 mm6.0 2.5 cm 90  m110  m 61.5 This is a surprise: The hard work gets done at 8 cm! The purpose of the intermediate tracking layers is to make 55% go up to ~100% All values quoted for mid-rapidity Kaons at 750 MeV/c

38. 38 Jim Thomas - LBL Does charm flow hydrodynamically? –Heavy Flavor Tracker: unique access to low-p T fully reconstructed charm Are charmed hadrons produced via coalescence? –Heavy Flavor Tracker: unique access to charm baryons –Would force a significant reinterpretation of non-photonic electron R AA Muon Telescope Detector: precision measurements of J/ψ flow Properties of the sQGP

39. 39 Jim Thomas - LBL Rapid Insertion During this operation the PXL box rests on two 6 inch aluminum box beams. These beams are supported independent of walking platform Each half of the PXL detector is supported on two round slide rails both in the PXL storage box and in the MSC. In this procedure the box most be accurately moved into position to align the slide rails of the box with the rails in the MSC Up dated, includes measurement tool for checking alignment of two rail systems and instructions

40. 40 Jim Thomas - LBL Calculating the Performance of the Detector Billoir invented a matrix method for evaluating the performance of a detector system including MCS and dE/dx –NIM 225 (1984) 352. The ‘Information Matrices’ used by Billoir are the inverse of the more commonly used covariance matrices –thus,  ’s are propagated through the system The calculations can be done by ‘hand’ or by ‘machine’ (with chains) STAR ITTF ‘machine’ uses a similar method (aka a Kalman Filter) –The ‘hand calculations’ go outside-in –STAR Software goes outside-in and then inside-out, and averages the results, plus follows trees of candidate tracks. It is ‘smart’ software. 

41. 41 Jim Thomas - LBL Hand Calculations.vs. GEANT & ITTF - - - - PXL stand alone configuration Paper Proposal configuration    GEANT & ITTF adjusted to have the correct weights on PXL layers Updated configuration … no significant changes in pointing at VTX TPC alone Full System

42. 42 Jim Thomas - LBL Flow: Probing Thermalization of the Medium pypy Coordinate space: initial asymmetry Momentum space: final asymmetry pxpx x y Semiperipheral collisions Signals early equilibration (t eq  0.6 fm/c)

43. 43 Jim Thomas - LBL Flow: Constituent Quark Number Scaling In the recombination regime, meson and baryon v 2 can be obtained from the quark v 2 :

44. 44 Jim Thomas - LBL Scaling as a Function of (m T – m 0 ) The light quark sector scales beautifully with v 2 /n q.vs. (m T – m 0 )/n q –Note that p T < 1 GeV always did scale ! The strange quark sector also scales with and the scaling holds at all centralities Even the  meson V 2 / n q Does it work in the Charm Sector? A strong test of the theory Yuting Bai, QM 2006 for the STAR Collaboration STAR Preliminary work by Yan Lu

45. 45 Jim Thomas - LBL Baryons vs. mesons Coalescence and fragmentation conspire at intermediate p T to give constituent quark number scaling and Baryon-Meson differences. Coalescence and fragmentation of charm quarks is different than for light quarks … so it is a strong test of the theory Coalescence of light quarks implies deconfinement and thermalization prior to hadronization How do baryons and mesons behave in the Charm sector? The Λ c will be a fascinating test … and we might be able to do it with the HFT via Λ c / D

46. 46 Jim Thomas - LBL “Heavy Flavor” is the next frontier at RHIC A low viscosity, sQGP is the universally accepted hypothesis The next step in confirming this hypothesis is the proof of thermalization of the light quarks in RHIC collisions The key element in proving this assertion is to observe the flow of charm … because charm and beauty are unique in their mass structure If heavy quarks flow –frequent interactions among all quarks –light quarks (u,d,s) likely to be thermalized Current quark: a bare quark whose mass is due to electroweak symmetry breaking Constituent quark: a bare quark that has been dressed by fluctuations in the QCD sea

47. 47 Jim Thomas - LBL Hints of Elliptic Flow with Charm Shingo Sakai, QM 2006 for the PHENIX Collaboration D  e +X Single electron spectra from PHENIX show hints of elliptic flow Is it charm or beauty? The HFT will cut out large photonic backgrounds:   e + e - and reduce other large stat. and systematic uncertainties STAR can make this measurement with 50 M Au+Au events in the HFT Smoking gun for thermalization at RHIC! Better if we can do direct topological identification of Charm

48. 48 Jim Thomas - LBL Heavy Flavor Energy Loss … R AA for Charm Heavy Flavor energy loss is an unsolved problem –Gluon density ~ 1000 expected from light quark data –Better agreement with the addition of inelastic E loss –Good agreement only if they ignore Beauty … Beauty dominates single electron spectra above 5 GeV We can separate the Charm and Beauty by the direct topological identification of Charm Theory from Wicks et al. nucl-th/0512076v2 Where is the contribution from Beauty?

49. 49 Jim Thomas - LBL A Rich Physics Program There is a rich physics program when all of the STAR physics detectors are working together –Flow in the Charm sector –dE/dx in the Charm sector –Recombination and R AA in the Charm sector –Vector Mesons –Charm Angular Correlations –non-photonic electrons –…

50. 50 Jim Thomas - LBL The Simplest ‘Simulation’ – basic performance check Study the last two layers of the system with basic telescope equations with MCS –PXL 1 and PXL 2 alone ( no beam pipe ) –Give them 9  m resolution hh In the critical region for Kaons from D 0 decay, 750 MeV to 1 GeV, the PXL single track pointing resolution is predicted to be 20-30  m … which is sufficient to pick out a D 0 with c  = 125  m The system (and especially the PXL detector) is operating at the MCS limit In principle, the full detector can be analyzed 2 layers at a time … TPC alone PXL alone

51. 51 Jim Thomas - LBL –Goal: graded resolution and high efficiency from the outside  in –TPC – SSD – IST – PXL –TPC pointing resolution at the SSD is ~ 1 mm –SSD pointing at the IST is ~ 400  m (200 x 800) –IST pointing at PXL 2 is ~ 400  m (200 x 800) –PXL 2 pointing at PXL1 is ~ 125  m (90 x 175 ) –PXL1 pointing at the VTX is ~ 40  m (Kaon at 750 MeV) Overview & Goals for Si Detectors Inside the TPC The challenge is to find tracks in a high density environment with high efficiency because a D 0 needs single track  2 ~ 50 cm

52. 52 Jim Thomas - LBL Graded Resolution from the Outside  In A PXL detector requires external tracking to be a success –The TPC and intermediate tracking provide graded resolution from the outside-in The intermediate layers form the elements of a ‘hit finder’ –The spectral resolution is provided by the PXL layers The next step is to ensure that the hit finding can be done efficiently at every layer in a high hit density environment TPC  vtx PXL alone TPC  SSD SSD  IST IST  PXL2 PXL2  PXL1 PXL1  VTX

53. 53 Jim Thomas - LBL Central Collisions: Density of hits on the Detectors where Au+Au Luminosity (RHIC-II) 80 x 10 26 cm -2 s -1 dn/d  (Central) 700 dn/d  (MinBias) 170 MinBias cross section 10 barns MinBias collision rate (RHIC-II) 80 kHz Interaction diamond size, σ 15 cm Integration time for Pixel Chips 200  sec Radius Simple Formula |  | = 0 |  | < 0.2|  | < 1.0 PXL 1 2.5 cm 17.8 cm -2 19.0 cm -2 15.0 cm -2 PXL 2 8.0 cm 1.7 cm -2 1.8 cm -2 1.5 cm -2 IST 14.0 cm 0.57 cm -2 0.66 cm -2 0.52 cm -2 SSD 23.0 cm 0.21 cm -2 0.23 cm -2 0.19 cm -2 The density of hits is not large compared to the number of pixels on each layer. The challenge, instead, is for tracking to find the good hits in this dense environment. Slightly conservative numbers 100,000 pixels cm -2

54. 54 Jim Thomas - LBL MinBias Pileup – The PXL Layers Integrate over Time A full study of the integrated hit loading on the PIXEL detector includes the associated pileup due to minBias Au-Au collisions and the integration time of the detector. PIXEL-1 Inner Layer PIXEL-2 Outer Layer Radius 2.5 cm 8.0 cm Central collision hit density 17.8 cm -2 1.7 cm -2 Integrated MinBias collisions (pileup) 23.5 cm -2 4.2 cm -2 UPC electrons 19.9 cm -2 0.1 cm -2 Totals 61.2 cm -2 6.0 cm -2 Pileup is the bigger challenge Integrate over time and interaction diamond 200  sec Not insignificant

55. 55 Jim Thomas - LBL A Quick Note About Absolute Efficiencies The previously quoted efficiencies do not include the geometric acceptance of the detectors The TPC has an approximately 90% geometric acceptance due to sector boundaries and sector gaps –In addition, the TPC has an additional ~90% efficiency factor at RHIC II luminosities … this is a software and tracking issue due to the large multiplicity of tracks The SSD has an approximately 90% geometric acceptance due to areas where the crossed strips don’t achieve full coverage All ‘new’ detectors are assumed to have 100% geometric acceptance Efficiency from the previous slide –0.98 x 0.98 x 0.93 x 0.94 = 0.84 Geometric acceptance and TPC track finding efficiencies –0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.73 In this example Total = 0.61

56. 56 Jim Thomas - LBL Single Track Efficiencies – Hand Calc.vs. ITTF The efficiency for finding tracks in central Au+Au collisions in the STAR TPC and the HFT. Finite acceptance effects for the TPC and SSD are included in the simulations. The quoted efficiency from GEANT/ITTF is for |  | < 1.0 and for tracks coming from the primary vertex with |v z | < 5 cm. Hand Calculations Hand calculations assume the acceptance is flat in p T and assume a single track at  = 0.5

57. 57 Jim Thomas - LBL D0 Reconstruction Efficiencies Compared Geant/ITTF The predicted absolute efficiency of the HFT detector. –The red squares show the efficiency for finding the D 0 meson with the full set of Geant/ITTF techniques. The green line shows the D 0 efficiency predicted by the Geant/ITTF single particle efficiencies The blue line shows the D 0 efficiency predicted by the hand calculations –Single track efficiencies for the kaon and pion are integrated over the Lorentz kinematics of the daughter particles to predict the D 0 efficiency Hand Calculation give guidance … but more complex questions should be answered by the full suite of tools available to Geant/ITTF Hand Calculations

58. 58 Jim Thomas - LBL A Robust Design There is a rich physics program that can be addressed with the HFT in STAR The HFT is thin, unique, innovative and robust The designs have been tested extensively with hand calculations and more carefully with specific examples tested with GEANT/ITTF simulations

59. 59 Jim Thomas - LBL The Pixel Detector lies beneath the SSD and IST

60. 60 Jim Thomas - LBL Kinematic Mounts Kinematic mounts exploit the fact that three points define a plane Obvious ‘perfect’ alignment with four spheres  3 points of contact Reproducible position to 10  m, often used on optical benches More typical design on the right … the difficult part is to maintain enough pressure on the points of contact to hold their position

61. 61 Jim Thomas - LBL Hinge and Cooling Duct detail

62. 62 Jim Thomas - LBL Air Cooling Silicon power: tested at 170 mW/cm 2 (~ power of sunlight) 350 W total in the ladder region (Si + drivers) computational fluid dynamics Air-flow based cooling system for PXL to minimize material budget. Detector mockup to study cooling efficiency ladder region

63. 63 Jim Thomas - LBL MSC Pixel Insertion Tube Pixel Support Tube IDS East Support Cylinder Outer Support Cylinder West Support Cylinder PIT PST ESC OSC WSC Shrouds Middle Support Cylinder Inner Detector Support Structures: Exploded Detail Assemble using bolted interfaces MSC installed into IDS after IDS assembled (detectors not shown)

64. 64 Jim Thomas - LBL Stability Performance IDS analyzed for deflection Anticipated response convolved with measured STAR vibration environment RMS Stability under 10  m

65. 65 Jim Thomas - LBL East Pole Tip as seen during a summer shutdown Beam-Beam counter installed in East Pole Tip View of Existing East Pole Tip Area

66. 66 Jim Thomas - LBL The Silicon Strip Detector – an existing detector 20 ladders located at a radius of 22 cm Double sided Si strips, 95  m pitch, 4 cm long, crossed at 35 mrad The electronics on each end of the ladder are to be upgraded Readout Goal: > 1 kHz for all detectors in the HFT