Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0 Some random HPS comments Mike Albrow HPS is accepted in CMS as an R&D project : Physics case is accepted If R&D is successful and funds can be obtained, Stage I likely to be approved. Stage I is 240m + 240m with moving pipes, BPMs, Si tracking and timing, reference timing, trigger and DAQ integrated to CMS. Plan to install in 20|2 – 20|3 shut-down, with 420m installed later (20|6?) Note: In 20|3 cryobypasses to be installed in Pt-3 >>> solved issue. Need to have by end 20|| “first station” ( about |m long) of 4 for |st stage, tested together in beam. Then have ~ a year to “reproduce” 3 times. Tracking ~ 4 x-y layers of pixels (3D or not: to be decided) Timing: | gastof + 2 quartics. (Q+SiPM R&D continues … may be better (rad hardness?)) Pipe & mechanics must be AFP + HPS + LHC collaboration. Need to arrange working meeting soon (Jan?) Combined tests of 3D Si + Timing incl. reference timing ~ Sept 20ll

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0 Cryogenic bypass at 420m to be installed in Pt 3 for collimation ~ Manchester FP420 design

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0 Prototype full station : Valves, flanges, bellows all LHC standard. Moving (Louvain) pipe, windows LHC approved. BPM/movimg mechanism. Assembled as integrated unit. Detectors (3D Si block, GASTOF, QUARTIC) standard mounts (plug in/out) Infrastructure (tracker cooling, cables, motors etc) and local electronics Reference timing between Quartic and Gastof with 300 m tests it in situ. Prototype HPS Station: Final stage of R&D Assemble at CERN (or Fermilab) by end 20II, Full beam test. + R&D on Rad hardness, lifetimes, etc Mike A Nov 30 20I0 ROUGH SKETCH

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0 6 Cherenkov Light at 48 o p Same side: t(A) - t(B) independent of x. (but dx only 2 mm, ~ 15 ps) Opposite side: t(A) + t(B) independent of x t(A) - t(B) ~ 7.5 ps/mm (dx). Tracking can show correlation and show this. Double-Quartic: we give resolution for this and each one separately. TIMING DETECTORS: QUARTIC-1

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0 7 A=15.5 ps B=16.3 ps quadrature combination 11.2 ps Beam at nominal x and 10 mm closer to PMT OS T1 = A-B, cf SS … is it wider (should be + ~ 15ps in quad) Can we get [A+B] resolution using event-by-event formula? Same as simple form? channels Some Results: Remove tails of PH distributions (correlated, probably interactions). Apply time-slewing correction (CFD needs residual PH correction) Fit t(1) – t(2) to Gaussians (good fits):

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0 8 Resolution vs Nbars bars  Bars contribute about equally  Two detectors the same # p.e. ~ (5 bars)

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0 9 Further studies: will enable tests of simulations and optimizing designs. Dependence on bar length: (longer is better … further from beams. but chromatic dispersion (more intense blue light slower than red) begins to hurt. Measure: Effect of reducing light spectrum with red-pass and blue-pass filters. Can quartz fiber bundles replace rigid bars? Flexibility in matching dx  PMT pads. Long 150mm bar : PH, N(pe), σ(t) for 3 positions along bar Measured: Red and Blue filters Two fiber bundles BEAM Δσ(t) ~ 1 ps/cm

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0 10 Double Q-bar Quartz (fused silica) bars 6mm x 6mm x 90mm  PHOTEK 210 Mounted at Cherenkov angle θc ~ 48 deg. on opposite sides. dz = 6 mm/sin(48) = 8.1 mm. Some light direct to PMT, ~1/2 TIR to PMT Black “sock” over bars just to avoid light sharing C B A Unfold: σ(A) = 22.3 ps σ(B) = 30.5 ps Includes electronics (~3 ps) and 2 mm beam width smear (A,B) Δt = 2 mm x (10 ps/2 mm) Combining [AB] removes beam spread (later, tracking)

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0 11 σ = 6.04 ch = 18.7 ps Unfold C = 7.7 ps, σ(AB) = 17.0 ps Resolution of double-Q-bar 2 mm x-spread not to be subtracted (only 3 ps electronics) Resolution of Double-Qbar as one device * * Derivation in back-up

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0 Test beam arrangement for one Quartic w/Photonis MCP-PMT Nov fermilab

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0 Q + SiPM

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0 14 Tests of SiPMs = silicon photomultipliers Eight Hamamatsu SiPMs, 3mm x 3mm In beam with quartz Cherenkov radiators several thicknesses (4 – 12mm), mirrored and not mirrored. Best conditions σ(t) ~ 33 – 37 ps photoelectrons Channels Between SiPMs and C. Slewing correction applied

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0 Time difference distribution between Q-bar 4 and SiPM: σ = 29.8 ps  ~ 20 ps for one Q-bar and 15 ps for Q-SiPM Expect ~ 10 ps for an 8-bar Quartic or 4 Q-SiPMs (T.B.D.) PRELIMINARY from Andrew Brandt

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0 2mm x 2mm trigger counter Veto counter with hole BEAM PHOTEK PMT240 6 Q-bars+SiPMs SiPM + Quartz bars

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0 One proton through 6 Q+SiPM bars  DRS4 “scopeguts” 200ps/sample SiPM Trigger counter

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0 proton photons SiPM Quartz bar ~ 3 mm ~ 5 mm Wires (~40V & signal) Schematic of one detector : BEAM x proton Transverse view Detector ring may have x-y position control May rotate to cross-calibrate detectors Beam pipe (vac) Feed- through (SiPM at both ends if two opposite beams) BEAM HINGES Vary spacing of ring supports Varies radius of detector ring Possible support scheme: : halo proton Ring supports LHC Beam Halo Monitor based on FP420 R&D ? (testing at CERN)

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0 Longer term possibility? “GHz Streak Camera” MGA + Vic Scarpine + ? Manfred Wendt et al (Acc.Div.) In principle could solve issue of multiple p in bunch, MCP lifetime Cherenkov photons QUARTZ WINDOW (vac) PHOTOCATHODE MCP: G~100? FOCUSING TRIPLET MS? ES? SWEEPING ELECTRODES X & Y 400 MHz LHC-RF Si PIXEL DETECTOR (Std. CMS) VACUUM ~ 10 p.e. ~ 1000 e. ~ 5kV? 10 kV? Time  Position. No optimization!  2.5 ns/sweep. Could step up x4 to 1.2 GHz  830 ps sweep, ~ 200 pixels LHC RF is reference time >>> Δt ~ ΔØase. To be simulated.

Mike Albrow, FermilabHPS Comments, Manchester 20l0 SUMMARY We make progress. HPS CMS