Feb 8, 2011 Calibration/Monitoring

From GlueXWiki
Revision as of 13:32, 8 February 2011 by Zisis (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Teleconference Time: 09:00 CST (Regina) / 10:00 EST / 17:00 GMT+2 (Athens)

  • ESNET preferred, EVO as a backup

Background information

Action Items

  1. Why was the dynamic range of the APD tested over 20-450? Where there intrinsic limitations? Can it be extended to form a ratio of 400?
  2. Can George calculate the % deviation from linearity on his plot?
  3. Can George verify that the two-setting operation (low bias for near, high bias for far SiPM flashing) is feasible?
  4. What is the approximate power dissipation for each board? (Just LPM since LPCM will be further away).
  5. Zisis will bounce another idea for the one-setting operation mode.
  6. USM should be contacted to send more LGs to Athens (and eventually Regina).

Tentative Agenda

  1. MoU
  2. Discuss Action Items.
  3. Review goals/objectives of Monitoring system; summary of discussions at Collaboration Meeting
  4. Presentation to CALWG.

Minutes

Attendees: Christina (Athens), Elton (JLab), Zisis (Regina)

  1. MoU
    • Details were discussed, clarifying the % of time on research in Athens and FTE fraction. There is no technician in the group, but this can be handled in the contract. Students are hard to come by because there is no formal financial support in Greece, but perhaps programs like the APS International Travel Award can assist.
    • The expected overhead on JLab monies is 15%. It was felt that this formal avenue should be pursued, rather than indirectly through CERN. There is considerable bureaucratic load in hiring persons in Greece, following the new guidelines.
    • Board stuffing should be done commercially or at USA institution and not in Greece.
    • Global plan would include Athens doing the remaining R&D, prototyping and (sample) 'first article' testing, with the testing of all production boards done elsewhere. A final check prior to assembly should also be done. As much as possible should be done away from JLab owing to the expected congestion in test space and manpower during installation.
  2. Action Items: most are completed.
    • Zisis will confirm with Will to send 10 LGs to Regina and 12 to Athens.
    • The electronics engineer says that a short 5-10cm long wire can be used to have the LED be free of its board for easy coupling to the small fibre, if we proceed in this manner.
    • Discussions at Collaboration Meeting were summarized. The confirmation of simultaneous flashing each SiPM by two LEDs moves our system selection forward.
    • The 'cross talk' between adjacent LGs will have to be examined as this can impact cluster center of gravity.
  3. BCAL monitoring next step: Andrei/Zisis will collect the information of the LED+small fibre test and send to Christina and Elton before moving forward. Athens will collect all of George's answers in an Appendix (Word document).
  4. FCAL monitoring next step: we have a solution. Elton will communicate with Tim's group to determine required mechanical rigidity. The system could be composed of four quadrants, with a hole around the beam, where additional LEDs can be placed to flash from the inside out (radially). Athens will think about using LEDs with different colours. Additional tests can be done as part of the contract.
  5. Presentation to the CAL WG may be as early as Thursday February 17.