1. Overview of SoLID Jian-ping Chen SoLID Collaboration Meeting June 13-14, 2012

2. SoLID: large acceptance, capable of handling high luminosity (up to~10 39 with baffle, up to ~10 37 without baffle) Ideal for precision Inclusive-DIS (PVDIS) and SIDIS experiments Possibility also for exclusive reactions Three Approved Experiments with “A” rating: PVDIS (E12-10-007), (Paul’s talk) SIDIS: (E12-10-006) and (E12-11-007) (Haiyan’s talk) Conditionally approved proposal: Proton SIDIS (Haiyan’s talk) Condition: transversely polarized NH3 target compatible with SoLID Progress: magnet design on-going New Ideas: J/Psi Proposal: submitted to PAC39 Other possibilities (some discussed at the last meeting) SoLID Experiments

3. SIDIS Requirements Kinematics Coverage: – 0.05 ~ 0.6 in x (valence) – 0.3 ~ 0.7 in z (factorization region) – P T up to ~ 1.5 GeV (TMD Physics) – Fixed target  Q 2 coverage 1-8 GeV 2 (~ 2 GeV 2 in ΔQ 2 at fixed x) – CLEO: 9-17 degrees for  9-24 degrees for e Luminoisity: – unpolarized ~ 10 37 N/cm 2 /s – polarized ~ 10 36 N/cm 2 /s Polarized 3 He Target: – ~ 60% higher polarization – Fast spin flip (<20 mins) Electron PID: (1-7 GeV/c) – <1% Pion contamination Pion PID: – <1% Kaons and Protons – <1% electron contamination Resolution: – < a few % in δP/P. – <1 mr in polar angle. – <10 mr in azimuthal angle – ~ 1-2 cm vertex resolution – Similar precision required. – A factor of 2 better achieved in MC DAQ: – ~ 3kHz Physics Coincidence – ~ 200 kHz Single electron – ~ 50 kHz Coincidence – Limits: 300 MB/s to tape.

4. PVDIS 0.5% precision over broad kinematics range. – 22-35 degrees – Beam Polarimetry – Control false asymmetries in PID/Tracking. New Cryotarget Design – Challenges in mechanical engineering. – Control of false asymmetry. High luminosity 10 39 N/cm 2 /s – Baffle to block direct photons Effectively reduce luminosities on detectors. – Background in Cerenkov. – Radiation dose in Calorimeter. Similar to SIDIS requirement Electron PID: (2-7 GeV/c) – < ~1% Pion contamination – Gas Cerenkov + E&M Calorimeter for < 3.0 GeV – Calorimeter alone for high Momentum – GEM for tracking 30 sectors, each employs an independent DAQ system. – Simpler design than SIDIS. – < 10 kHz per sector Require L3 farm and online tracking. – Proof-of-principle of tracking was achieved. 2.5 kHz per sector @ 1 CPU @ 3.0 GHz.

5. Design Considerations Kinematic Coverage: – CLEO magnet is ideal – In addition to 11 GeV, data taking at 8.8/6.6 GeV and also for radiative corrections Luminoisity-> high rate: – Requirement on GEMs, Cerenkov. – Radiation dose on E&M Calorimeter and front end electronics. – Requirement on DAQ system. Electron PID: – Combination of E&M calorimeter + Gas Cerenkov (SIDIS/PVDIS shared equipments) – Advantage of coincidence measurement in SIDIS (additional Pion suppression) Pion PID (SIDIS): – Gas Cerenkov + E&M Calorimeter to suppress electron. – TOF (MRPC) at low momentum to suppress kaons/protons – Heavy Gas Cerenkov to suppress kaons in high momentum.

6. GEM SoLID- PVDIS Configuration

7. SoLID- SIDIS Configuration

8. PVDIS vs SIDIS Can you find six differences between these panels? Target Location, Baffles (PVDIS), Cerenkov’s, GEM Layout, Extra E-Cal, MRPC(SIDIS)

9. Magnet: CLEO magnet (discuss next meeting) Simulations: including baffle design (Seamus’ talk) background (Lorenzo’s talk) tracking (Ole’s) GEMs: Chinese collaboration progress (discuss next meeting) US side progress/ R&D / tests (Nilanga’s talk) Cherenkov: PMT (Zein-Eddine’s talk) HBD (Tom’s talk) EM calorimeters: Design/simulation/tests (Xiaochao’s talks) MRPC: Tsinghua U, experience from STAR, beam test (discuss next meeting) DAQ: Design/plan (Alexandre’s talk) Polarimetry: Compton (Kent’s talk) Atomic Moller (Kurt’s talk) Targets: ( Discuss next meeting) Cryotarget: coordinated design effort, G0 as starting point Pol. 3He: convection cell progress Pol. NH3: new transverse magnet design Status

10. Magnet Comparison BaBarCLEOZEUSCDFGlue-XOther Cryostat Inner Radius 150 cm 86 cm150 cm Whatever we need Length345 cm350cm245cm500 cm Central Field 1.49T1.5T1.8T1.47T Yoke Aval?Yes No Cool IconYes No Variation in Current density with z? Current Density in central 50% is ½ that in end 25% Current Density in central 50% is 1/1.04 that in end 25% Current density 25% more current at ends NoYes Available Probably Not?? YES Probably Not?? Needs $1M repair and possible Expt at Fermilab Perhaps$8M?? 6 January 2012 Paul E. Reimer, Magnets, SoLID "Brainstorm" session 10 CLEO magnet will produce the desired acceptance and resolution for both SIDIS and PVDIS

11. Simulation GEANT3  GEANT4 based GEMC (adapted from Hall B) Event generators Magnetic field (BaBar  CLEO) Detector digitization Background Background for physics FLUKA for neutron background Radiation damage Baffle design Detector Simulations GEM (adapted from SuperBB) Cherenkov (stand-alone GEANT4) EM calorimeter (stand-alone GEANT4) Tracking (Ole’s talk) Simulation/Background/Tracking S. Riordan’s talk L. Zana’s talk O. Hansen’s talk

12. Layout in SoLID Subsystems: Gaseous Electron Multipliers (GEMs) UVa/INFN/ Chinese Collaboration (USTC/CIAE/Lanzhou/Tsinghua/IMP ) Readout scheme PVDIS SIDIS Optimized for f resolution R&D shared with Super BigBite. Additional challenges to overcome: * planes dimensions as large as 100 cm: => 99 x 40 GEM foil crafted by CERN * high number of channels: => Scalable Readout System (SRS) from CERN; channel unit cost going down to few $ N. Liyanage’s talk

13. PVDIS: one gas Cherenkov for electron/pion separation + trigger Subsystems: Gas Cherenkovs SIDIS: two gas Cherenkovs: one for electron/pion separation, one for pion/kaon separation. e-e- p SoLID Cherenkov collaboration: - Duke University; - Temple University; - Stony Brook University; 1 m 0.9 m 2 m Observer Mirrors “Winston” cone e-e- Electron Cherenkovs: Two options: - H8500C maPMT; CO 2/ (SIDIS) - C 4 F 8 O/N 2 (PVDIS) - GEM+CsI; CF 4 Range: 1.5-4.5 GeV/c (SIDIS) - 2-4 (PVDIS) Basic design (1 sector) Pion: Gas: C 4 F 8 O at 1.5 atm Useful range: 2.5-7.5 GeV/c Mirrors Z.Maziani’s talk T. Hemmick’s talk

14. Provides pion rejection + trigger. Uses shashlyk technology (sandwich of Pb and scintillator): Advantages: - radiation hard (500 kRad); - good energy and timing resolution (tunable by choice of material/thickness of layers) Subsystems: EM Calorimeter PVDIS Considered block geometry/layout. Square block: easy assembly/rearrangeme nt. preshower/shower to improve pion rejection: SoLID EM calo collaboration: - Los Alamos National Lab; - University of Virginia; - Duke University; - College of William and Mary; SIDIS Forward angle calo Large angle calo X. Zheng’s talk

15. Data Acquisition - Benefits from Hall D DAQ development; - Performance to be tested within next few years. - Responds to demanding SoLID requirements: 50-100 kHz evt rate x 4kB /evt (SIDIS) A. Camsonne’s talk

16. Overall coordination: (J.P. Chen/H. Gao/P. Souder) Calibration: (P. Souder/X, Qian) Magnet/Support/Simulations (Argonne/Duke/UVa/Umass) Magnet (JLab Engineering Div./ Argonne, P. Reimer) Detector supporting structure (Duke, H. Gao) General simulation (UVa, Z. Zhao/ Umass, S. Riordan) Neutron background simulation (Syracuse, L. Zana) Tracking (UVa/Chinese/others) GEM detectors (UVa, N.Liyanaga,/Chinese collaboration) Tracking software (JLab/O. Hansen/ Caltech, X. Qian/ Umass, S. Riordan) Gas Cherenkov(Temple/Duke/Stony Brook) Light gas Cherenkov (S. Malace/H. Gao, Z. Meziani, T. Hemmick) Heavy Gas Cherenkov (S. Malace/H. Gao Z. Meziani) EM Calorimeter (UVa/Los Alamos/W&M) Forward angle (UVa, Z.Zhao, X. Zheng/ W&M, D. Armstrong) Large angle (Los Alamos, J. Haung, X. Jiang/ Duke, M. Meziane, H. Gao) TOF with MRPC (Tsinghua, Y. Wang/Duke, H. Gao/JLab, A. Camsonne) DAQ and Trigger (JLab, A. Camsonne, Y. Qiang/Umass, R. Miskimen) Polarimeters: Compton (UVa, K. Paschke/JLab, S. Nanda) Atomic Moller (Mainz, F. Mass, K. Aulenbacher/ W&M, W. Deconinck) Targets (JLab, J.P. Chen/JLab cryotarget group, D. Meekins) Infrastructure (JLab, Hall A engineer/design team, R. Wines) More groups are joining (UIUC, J.C. Peng, MIT, S. Gilad, …) Subsystems/Responsibilities

17. One option: split and mix Chinese contribution, NSF/MRI, Modest DOE/MIE, JLab capital equipment, Sharing readout systems amongst Halls Magnet: extraction/transport/refurbish/infrastructure: ~$3-5 M JLab GEMs ~ $4-5 M (Anticipate) Mainly Chinese Collaboration Cherenkov ~$3-4 M Collaboration: MRI or MIE EM Calorimeter: $3-5 M Collaboration: MRI / MIE DAQ/Trigger electronics 3-4 M JLab Physics Division sharing among 4 halls. (Very Rough) Cost and A Plan to Move Forward