GLAST LAT ProjectBeam Test Meeting 1/21/2006 L. Latronico1 Beam test activity in Italy Integration & test activities –1x1 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 beamtest06 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 march –It will be a working meeting –Possibility to extend visit to work in specific areas (DAQ merge, data- stream merge, integration and mechanics procedures, ACD location, simulation tutorials, analysis groups)

GLAST LAT ProjectBeam Test Meeting 1/21/2006 L. Latronico2 Data Acquisition GASU Ext trigger box VME PS HouseKeeping PC Rotation stand – will extend to 1x4 TKR CAL (inside) Bay (outside) TEM/TPS Ethernet cables to DAQ and monitor PC Easy to rotate – Carmelo rotated a 150Kg tower in less than a minute (180 degress clock and counter-clock wise for fun)

L. Latronico Page Number ParticleEnergyAreaAncillary systemsInterestNotes  50MeV- fewGeV PSSi-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-,  GeVPSCerenkov 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  Low energy hadrons (p, , K) Up to few GeV (dependi ng on beam) PSTOF for p (hard-to-fit and calibrate in T9 area due to limited space) Cerenkov for  EM/Had separation Backgnd rejection Are p really needed or can we live with  ? p require reverse beam polarity / need to identify proper target e+Up to few GeV (dependi ng on beam) PSCerenkov 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-,  GeV SPSCerenkov 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  All PS runs will require anticoicidence scintillators after CU to screen backsplash from rear wall

L. Latronico Page Number From LAT-TD (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 10GeV tagged , unless we keep the deviated e- in the CU and maybe only study TKR (hard to separate  and e in the CAL)