1. 1 BTeV Status  Collaboration Status New Groups  University of Iowa - C. Newsom (Pixels)  Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP - Protvino) - A. Derevschikov, Y. Goncharenko, V. Khodyrev, A.P. Meschanin, L. V. Nogach, K. E. Shestermanov, L. F. Soloviev and A. N. Vasiliev (EM calorimeter) New People  Minnesota - A. Smith (Simulations)  Syracuse - R. Mountain (RICH & EM cal)  Syracuse - G. Majumder (EM cal simulations ) S. Stone 11/5/99

2. 2 Pixel Test Beam Activities  Pixel tests - Great Results see Joel’s talk

3. 3 Muon Tests  Muon tests tube design robust - no broken wires tubes are efficient > 95% on ArCO 2, with wide plateaus noise issues addressed  Straw tube tests planned but not started due to lack of resources

4. 4 Electronics & DAQ Workshop  Organized with Ed Barsotti - Oct. 8-9, 1999  Preliminary front end designs for all BTeV systems  Data flow to L1 buffer specified  Trigger and readout specified  High Voltage systems discussed with CAEN on Nov. 4, 1999

5. 5 Schedule: Simulations  Now Working: BTeV GEANT, trigger, Calorimeter code including clustering (needs to be tuned)  Fix detector geometry 12/18  Material Budget Studies (No, we don't require less material, but it would be nice) 1/7  Working interface to GEANT or MCFAST 1/1  Generate physics backgrounds (over Xmas holidays)  Finish final states requested by PAC: B o , D* -  +, B s  D s - K + 3/1  MCFAST studies of other processes 4/1

6. 6 Oganization for Proposal - Pixels & Tracking  Pixels Groups: CMU, Fermilab, IIT, Iowa, Milano, Syracuse, Wisconsin Plan: Beam Tests of Fpix0, Fpix1 and path to final BTeV chip; engineering for full system asked for, but not yet provided  Tracking systems (straw tubes and silicon) Groups: Indiana, Milano, Tenn. Plan: Full system design

7. 7 Schedule: Pixels  Beam test runs, finish 1/17  Analysis of test runs finish 3/1  Sensor delivery 2/15 Initial tests 2/15 – 3/30  0.25  CMOS, test chip 12/15, results 2/1  Pre FPIX2, submission 12/15, results 5/1  Bump bonding yield tests 3/1  HDI flex cable module test 3/1  Mechanical pre prototype 3/1

8. 8 Oganization/schedule - RICH  Groups: Syracuse  Plan: Full design, aerogel tests, PMT or HPD choice Some aerogel samples procured, tests to start soon, finish 3/1 Met with Hamamatsu about multi-anode phototubes, will meet again in Dec. to discuss costs and delivery issues. Finalize design 4/1, full cost estimate 5/1

9. 9 Oganization for Proposal - EM cal hardware  Groups: IHEP, FNAL, Minn., Syracuse, York  Plan: Full design including sizes, simulations, PMT choice, optimum readout (QIE) design IHEP & Minn. Groups in contact with PbWO 4 producers, discussion on crystal sizes, schedules, costs begun; trips soon Talks held at Syracuse with Hamamatsu about phototubes

10. 10 Phototubes  Constraints Crystal size – 26 mm x 26 mm allows standard 1” tube. For 1 1/8” tube need 30 mm x 30 mm (still tight 1 1/8” = 29 mm)  We reject 24.7 mm 2 (baseline as too small, can only use ¾” tube, which KTeV does, but its too expensive  Note 26 mm 2 36,000 crystals (both arms) while 30 mm 2 gives “only” 27,000 Radiation Damage  Expect something like 140 Mrad, 10 year dose in worst place at 2 interactions/crossing  Can be handled with quartz window pm tubes from Hamamatsu. UV glass goes to 1/3 Mrad.  Russian FEU-115 tested to 34 Mrad (may be better) but is 29 mm diameter

11. 11 Phototubes II High Quantum Efficiency Required  We are photon statistics limited  E =1.6%/  E  0.55%  Hamamatsu tubes may have larger light output Tube must also have good linearity at high current ~ 30 ma (KTeV ~ 80 ma)  Candidate Hamamatsu & FEU tubes identified. We will visit Hamamatsu in early Dec. to get cost and delivery schedule on 1” and 1 1/8” tubes

12. 12 Schedule: Calorimeter  PbWO 4 – Get price and delivery schedules 3/1  Phototubes – Choice and cost estimate of baseline – 2/1  HV, bases, cable costs 3/1

13. 13 Oganization/schedule - Trigger/DAQ  Organization Groups: CMU, FNAL, IIT Plan: Decide if two-plane trigger can work; demonstrate that trigger is of adequate speed; show that efficiency and rejection are adequate  Schedule Trigger hardware timing studies  Level 1 - 2/15  Level 2 – 4/1 Level 3 strategy 4/1

14. 14 Schedule: Muons  Groups: Illinois, Pavia, Puerto Rico, Vanderbilt  Beam Backgrounds using STRUCT and GEANT (Vandy) 1/1 – 4/15  Trigger Development, Simulation, and Studies (PR, Ill., Vandy) 1/1 – 4/15  Complete Assembly and Testing of 2nd generation "plank" (design changes motivated by beam tests). Needed for accurate system cost estimate. (Vandy, Ill.) 1/15  Prototype work on readout electronics: both front-ends and downstream electronics: needed for accurate system cost estimate (Vandy) 1/15 – 4/15

15. 15 Resources  BTeV R & D IS RESOURCE LIMITED  Have had difficulty with DOE providing funding for R & D for an experiment that is not approved. Bad Press?  We do not have enough money for all hardware tests, or enough engineering to do as good a job on the proposal as we are capable of doing  We will do our best, given the limited resources available. Some additional hardware funds and engineering resources from the lab would be most helpful

16. 16 1 st GEANT – MCFAST Comparison GEANT MCFAST

17. 17 GEANT