1. T1008 status W.Baldini for the Ferrara and Padova SuperB-IFR Group

2. R&D for the SuperB Instrumented Flux Return Muon Identification E< 5GeV Superconducting solenoid Flux Return Instrumented with active material Plastic scintillator bars readout through WLS fibers and Silicon Photo-Multipliers (SiPM) Baseline layout to be tested on beam with a prototype TDR to be written in spring… 2

3. The IFR Baseline Detection Technique Magnet Flux Return instrumented to detect Muons and K L BaBar-like detector with hexagonal barrel and two encaps Plan to re-use BaBar IFR structure, adding iron to improve μ-ID Scintillator as active material to cope with higher flux of particles Minos-like scintillator bars readout through WLS fibers and Silicon Photo-Multipliers 8-9 active layers Barrel Endcap μ

4. The Prototype Active Layers (Pizza Boxes) Iron: 60x60x92 cm 3, 9 slots for the active layers up to 9 active layers readout together 4 Time Readout (TDC-RO) “standard “ 4 Binary Readout (BiRo) “standard” 4 special modules to study different fibers or SiPM geometry Iron Prototype Active Layer (“pizza box”) 4

5. Summary of activities Installation: Oct 18-19 Security walkthrough: Oct 19, first beam: Oct 19 Trigger and apparatus setting up Cherenkov and beam studies: – Cherenkov pressure scan at 3 and 4 GeV – Collimators ( MT4CH1, MT4CV1) scan: 30 – 60mm aperture The above studies took a few days due to the difficulty to find muon/pion thresholds on the Cherenkov and to study the beam composition Data taking at 4 GeV and 3 GeV (no 2 GeV) 5

6. Cherenkov threshold scans 6

7. Cherenkov pressure scan: 8 GeV (N 2 ) Expected muon thres.: 4.3 psi Expected pion thres.: 7.5 psi (cher1xS1xS2) counts/ beam counts N 2 Pressure (psi) 7 July data

8. Cherenkov pressure scan: 6 GeV (N 2 ) Exp. Muon thres.: 13.4 psi Exp. Muon thres. : 7.7 psi Normalized S1xS2xC1 counts Normalized Cherenkov counts 8 July data

9. Cherenkov pressure scan: 4 GeV (N 2 ) Exp. Muon thres: 17.3 psi 9 July data

10. Cherenkov pressure scan C 4 F 8 O 4-GeV 10 Should be flat… Muon/Pion signal (C1) Electron signal (C2) Exp. thresholds Pressure (psi) “interference” of the two signals? pion peak below expected threshold

11. Cherenkov pressure scan C 4 F 8 O 3-GeV Exp. thresholds Should be flat… Electron signal (C2) Muon “peak” Pion peak

12. Event samples… 12 Tagged as muons from Cherenkov Muons form our detector Electron peak (?) pions Track length distribution  Layer The sample of muons contains also many electrons and pions Data taken at 4 GeV on the muon peak (from cherenkov)

13. Summarizing….. All these studies are very interesting but…. we should use the Cherenkov to select clean samples of muons/pions to study the performances of our detector…. (mu/pi identification) At low momentum (<6 GeV) it’s clear that the Cherenkov “tagging” is not efficient (broad beam so optic not correct?) MWPC DAQ not available  no info in our data TOF info it’s not in our data as well, useful only at 2 GeV, data not taken We have some difficulties in understanding the data taken… 13