List of identified participants:

Aleksei Dziuba, Christian Dreisbach, Martin Losekamm, Benjamin Veit, Alexey Vorobyov, Alexander Inglessi, Federica Romeo, Fulvio Tessarotto, George Smirnov, Horst Fisher, Igor Konorov, Jan Friedrich, Karl Eichhorn, Maxim Alexeev, Martin Hoffmann, Nelly Sagidova, Oleg Denisov, Oleg Kiselev,Stefan Huber, Stefano Levorato, Thomas Poeschl,  Eugeny Maev,

 
14:00 → 14:15 Communication and Organizational Matters
Speaker: Christian Dreisbach (Technische Universitaet Muenchen (DE))

Christian: Change a format a bit. Due to the many open discussions we would like to change the scheme of our meeting to steer the discussions better and have them based on available material. Therefore we propose to switch from the quite open agenda points which were helpful in the past to a more structured and presentation-based scheme. Any reports given in the meeting which contain important information must be done with a presentation.

Aleksey Dzyuba (AD): Minutes of previous meeting are online now. Everyone is very welcome to correct.

14:20 → 14:40 Toy Monte Carlo Studies on background events
Speaker: George Smirnov (GS) (Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (RU))

AD: Are you concentrated on the main or on the pilot run?
GS: Both, but this is more an announcement that studies are started.

Alexey Vorobyev (AAV): Question about beam profile. We considered 50% of intensity is at 2 cm diameter. Is it still correct?
GS: From my experience I know that it can be target-spot dependent.

Moritz: We have a beam file for 100GeV muons? Dummy or preliminary?
Christian: That's what the beam people gave us.
GS: I consider that as preliminary information, which will change.

AD: What is a beam profile measurement procedure?
Jan: Usually we relay on a beam people.
bveit (seems that it's Moritz): Usually, beam-file is a starting point. When they tune magnet fields. When measured with COMPASS SciFi.

Jan: I would like to advertise a AMBER/MC initiative. Please join.
GS: I didn't receive email about it
Jan: I will check.

AAV: Are you going to implement a full spectrometer into Fluka?
GS: Not yet, but in principal this is possible.

AD: Great that we have Fluka as we can cross check ourselves (means Geant4 based simulations) for such processes as a background. For such purposes we have only qualitative answers so far.

14:45 → 15:05 Update on TPC simulation and reconstruction
Speaker: Martin Kurt Hoffmann (University of Bonn (DE))

AAV: You've mentioned a new material on your slides? What is it?
MKH: That's new implementation of the hydrogen

Thomas: Is it pure primary particle tracks?
MKH: It contains  everything including secondaries.

AAV: Which beam parametrization you have, when you describe beam noise?
MKH: We used a current beam file, but a simple model gives almost the same results.
AD: Does this model contain an assumption of no beam divergence?
MKH: Yes.
AD: You've got the model from the beam file with no other inputs?
MKH: Yes.

AAV: What was the procedure of the beam noise determination?
MKH: 0.5 MeV test pulse into all electrodes + add beam + process signal + extract energy.
Jan: Are the corrections you've explained included.
MKH: Yes.

Eugeny: Noise from a point-like beam (MAMI test) is visible at the next anodes rings. So there are delta electrons.
AD: The effect is not large. Projected slide from September meeting.
Eugeny: It can be visible if one summ over 16 anodes to have 1 ACTAF ring.

bveit: Halo is asymmetrical even for symmetrical beam. There is close halo / far halo.
AD: MKS shows halo isn't a player in beam noise studies.

AAV: How many muons cross the central pad at your simulations?
MKH: I don't remember exact numbers, but I can check.

15:10 → 15:30 Pilot run Goals and Realization
Speaker: Christian Dreisbach (Technische Universitaet Muenchen (DE))

Main idea is to divide preparations into three Working Packs (WP)

On WP-I: Igor's slide inside Christian's presentation

The question is that TPC --> FPGA implementation requires additional manpower (~6months of experienced FPGA programmers).

Oleg Kiselev (OK): We are thinking. But GSI have no manpower.
Alexander Inglessi (AI):  Is standalone PC still an option?
Igor: For pilot maybe, but for main fun better to have one DAQ.

Jan: We should discuss it in a closer circle.
Igor: It's at least the 3rd time, but still no answer.

On WP-II:
15:30 → 15:55 Possible combined and adjustable Layout of ALPIDEs and Fibers
Speaker: Martin Jan Losekamm , MJL (Technische Universitaet Muenchen (DE))

Oleg Denisov (OD): Most important thing absolute position in the space and relative position wrt other elements. Crucial targets on your system
to connect with overall alignment.
MJL: Agree. Two targets are foreseen.
OD: How often to re-measure positioning?
MJL: We need to discuss. But this is a question for wider discussion.
OD: Some mis-alighment can be corrected in a data analysis.
Jan: Most fundamental question will we go for this setup.

Stefano (S):
 - First thing to be in touch with Maxim as a responsible person for ALPIDEs.
 - The cost of the proposed device could be very high.
MJL: That's a proposal to start negotiation with companies, but first we have to agree.
S: Nothing against from my side. We should be focused on the goals.

Horst (H): Question to Stefano Why welding is so expensive?
S: Expensive manpower in CERN workshop.
H: Could be cheaper in Germany.

H: What is a cooling scheme?
MJL: Liquid cooling pipes inside PCB. Alcohol + water + some addings to prevent corrosion

Jan: We need a cost breakup and spending plan from MJL. Required costs what is nice to have.

Maxim:
 - Nice start.
 - Group in charge for this? We need to know where and how to stop our responsibilities in terms of connection.
 - We need a file and a meeting in a week from now. 11th of March.
 - One / more tracking points?

MJL:
 - Model is shared with Stefano.
 - For SciFi+ALPIDE. Crucial one full station for a pilot run.

WP-III (TPC with tracking)

AAV: Should we fix GSI as the default tracking system?

OK :
 - Officially the boards we have belong to ALICE collaboration. Have to agree with it.
 - They also must be integrated into COMPASS DAQ.
Jan:
 - If we can have it we should go for it.
Maxim:
 - Who does what in this case?
 - I can also propose to decrease beam rates.
 bveit:
 - Reduce beam intensity: beam has a lower limit (order magnitude can be hard)
 

AAV:
 - Is 4 stations + 1 APLIDE with SciFi an option?
bveit:
 - GSI+TPC likely we have a standalone DAQ
 - If SciFi is there when it will be needed to merge two DAQ concepts.

Horst:
 - COMPASS telescopes as an optin?
 - They have timing on board.
Jan:
 - We can't have 4 of them, but maybe two of them?
 - Additional timing measurement should be foreseen (scintillator).
 
Horst:
 - Can we use COMPASS SciFi stations?
bveit:
 - DAQ question as well, integrate it into one redout scheme.
Maxim:
 - Here the main question read by the new DAQ.
 - ALICE/GSI needs work as well.
 
Jan formulated a kind of goals for a test run:
 - Proof of principle as far as we could get.
 - All components in a beam.
 - Components operating together.
 
AAV: What are requirements for the alignment?
Jan: Muon alignment in average
 
 Igor:
 - How to follow WP structure?
Jan:
 - WPs (for example DAQ) should be discussed in smaller groups.