AMBER PRM - Minutes 04.05.2022

Participants:
Oleg Denisov, Jan Friedrich, Alexander Inglessi, Martin Hoffman, Christian Dreisbach, Benjamin Moritz Veit, Jens Barth, Martin Zemko, Stefao Levorato, Oleg K., Maxim Alexeev, Karl Eichhorn, Michael Pesek, Alexandr Shunko, Luke Rose, Martin Losekamm, Igor Konorov, Hanna Suess, Martin Bajzek, Martin Zemko, Carlos Argos, Fulvio, Sergei Gerassimov, Stephan Paul, Eva Kabuss, Daniele Panzieri

1. Communications and org. matters
 - No A. Dzuba and Stefano (excused)
 - SPSC document for AMBER + PRM Overleaf set up and Stefano and Igor for Hardware -- first version 20th May

2. Final design and analysis of the UTS stand (A. Shunko)
 - Stand at silicon platform position
 - Center of Gravity not under the supported area -- covered by simulation; 0.39 mm displacement and factor 3 safety margin
 - Stand made out of Bosch profiles
 - Force distribution not equal
 - M12 / M14 bolts to fix it to the platform
 - Updates next week
 - For Stefano: costs needs to be estimated for Oleg D. / Jan F.
 - Additional: M8 bolts -- 3.8 tons
   - Also additional angle can be added underneath the UTS

3. Preliminary results from the ALPIDE test in Juelich (Luke R.)
 - Spikes on slide 2 correspond to bad pixels
 - Additional material present during the beam test widening the beam profile
 - Efficiency still problematic due to noisy pixels. Rate given by beam scintillators as reference
 - Noisy pixels: DAQ New software (added triggers and time stamps), does not support disabling noisy pixels
 - Moisaik Modules received at Juelich and GSI for future and lab / beam tests. Joining with Freiburg development
   - Plan: Make them usable in terms of software -- Carlos from Freiburg: Working on the ALPIDE DAQ for AMBER.
   - Mask for the pixels: Mosaik able to do this?
   - Three different softwares with different features (not all the same or additional ones)
 - From DAQ meeting: Issue with hit sharing between events -- output signal will be shared between two events.
   - Mentioned in ALPIDE manual, but was not observed to often
   - 6 us after hit level is high -- parameters could probably be adapted. Pileup / over sampling in 1us to 2us hit present
 - Nosy pixels: 6 or 7 pixel, ended up to 14/15 after data taking
 - DAQ meeting: AMBER or COMPASS?

4. Studies on the spectrometer detector list (Martin H.)
 - Q2 simulated in respective bins - respective resolutions
 - Scattering angle always positive (< 1% bias for scattering angle)
 - muon identification: prob. due to HI5 size -- optimization of detector positions
   - Main effect: centering the detectors around the beam axis (deflected, SM2)
 - Middle hodoscopes are used for tracking in y, no huge effects, but should help with efficiencies in y. 
 - No SciFis -- efficiency drops by around 1%, but #hits could be adjusted in the reconstruction + pileup/timing 
 - PB excluded -- efficiency drops to zero -- probably hit the dead zones -- check alignment again
   - Dead areas need to be covered by GEMs
   - Same for MF2
   - HI5 -> IsMuon() as track extrapolated to HI5 and checked for hit
   - Redundancy for efficiency estimation would be good at this point
 - No GEMs cause issues in reconstruction for Vertexing and Momentum
   - Only SciFis for low Q2 tracks due to acceptance. Two space points downstream of SM2 -- to less information
 - Important for SPSC report that one can promise in the scope of 2023 electronics and equipped detectors
 - Check detector positions wrt. dead zones especially MWPCs
 - Beam rate 2MHz for MWPC: per wire 1E5 maximum probably -- slightly below around 150kHz closes wires to the dead area

5. Beam pipe length studies
 - 60 GeV simulation
 - Alex / Stefano in charge of the technical study? Will be informed