---------- Doorgestuurde bericht ---------- Van: *haba* Datum: donderdag 29 augustus 2013 Onderwerp: TIPP 2014 letter Aan: z66@nikhef.nl Cc: Eveline Schram-Post Dear Dr. Linde, Thanks for the mail. First of all, we like to have some first bulletin to announce that TIPP2014 will be held for 2-5 June, 2014 in Amsterdam. As long as I know, there have been no such announcement/poster around KEK in Japan. I'm happy to forward it to my colleagues over the globe. Best Regards; Junji Haba, KEK ---------- Doorgestuurde bericht ---------- Van: *Ken Peach* Datum: donderdag 5 september 2013 Onderwerp: TIPP 2014 letter Aan: Eveline Schram-Post Cc: frank linde , Ken Peach Dear Frank, Here are my thoughts ... 1) SENSORS/ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES Somewhere in here there needs to be "novel technologies" and "precision instruments" sections - acoustic detection, ionization detectors (e.g. for dark matter/double beta). [One idea that I like is Cerenkov/Transition radiation ... these couple to the refractive index and its derivative respectively - are there other detection methods that might depend upon derivatives of materials - acoustic detection approaches this ... 2) TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Should we try in this section to broaden it to "IMPACT ON OTHER SCIENCES" . e.g. SR, neutrons ... 3) DATA PROCESSING Data curation - how to preserve the information when that last person on the experiment has died ... Topics for plenary One very interesting topic (for whom I have no candidate sadly) would be "The Limits to Measurement" ... that is, a thorough exploration of the (usually quantum) limits to knowledge ... there are only a limited number of things that we can measure - time, position, frequency (or wavelength), linear and angular momentum, energy, charge & maybe a few other things (and their derivatives) ... this would be really interesting ... I will try to think of some speakers ... I am less in touch with this these days so more difficult ... Ken Professor Ken Peach, Co-Director, Particle Therapy Cancer Research Institute E-mail. Ken.Peach@ptcri.ox.ac.uk Phone: (mobile) [+44][0] 7770 652548 (office) [+44][0]1865 273 312 Web: http://www.ptcri.ox.ac.uk Address: Denys Wilkinson Building, University of Oxford, Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3RH. ---------- Doorgestuurde bericht ---------- From: Marcel Demarteau DearFrank, Thank you for your letteron the TIPP 2014 program. Please allow me to make a few suggestions and observationson the four questions you raise. Q1: Program I) SENSORS a) Calorimetry b) Semiconductors c) Gaseous d) Photon It is quite traditional to follow this categorization, which is also employed by IEEEand was used for TIPP 2011. Having said that, a photodetector for a dark matter experiment has very different requirements compared to a photodetector for a scintillating fiber tracker for say LHCb. I'm not sure what the right diagonalization is. Also, particle id detectors are sometimes in a category by itselfsince it is more than just photon detection; I also don't see cryogenic detectors such as transition edge sensors. You may want to broaden one class of sensors. II) EXPERIMENTS a) LHC experience & upgrades b) Astrophysics & Space c) Neutrinos d) Dark matter I'm afraid you have forgotten a broad class of experiments. What I see missing is experiments such as BELLE-II, BES, Mu2e, MEG, g-2, COMET, KOTO, .... experiments that are often referred to as intensity frontier experiments. These experiments should be included. I also wonder where you put cosmology. I'm thinking here of experiments such as LSST, MS-DESI, South Pole Telescope studying CMB etc. Then there is also gravitational wave experiments and experiments that look for axions that use some of the same interferometry techniques. It is not clear where they would fit in. III) DATA PROCESSING a) frontend/ASIC b) trigger c) DAQ d) embedded software ok IV) ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES a) cooling b) micro electro mechanical systems c) 3D integration d) photonics May I suggest to also include 'Emerging Technologies". When I hear 'Enabling technologies' I'm thinking of technologies that we are already incorporating into our detectors. I think it would be great if the program could be expanded to also include 'Emerging Technologies'. In my mind these are technologies that other branches of science are working on, but have not made it to particle physics yetbut do seem to hold a lot of potential. Examples are grapheneas modulator, quantum dots as wavelength shifter, nanotubes as microchannels, MEMS as dynodes, atomic layer deposition, etc. It is this cross-fertilization of ideas that I think could be a fascinating element to the program. I would also like to draw your attention to low-background materials. These are becoming exceedingly crucial for dark matter experiments. Production of radio-pure materials and assay of materials I think should be part of the program. V) TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER a) industry b) health c) biology & material science I am not quite sure what the planned structure of this session isand what its intent is. Is it to indicate that particle physics has significant reach and benefits to these areas? Oris the session aimed at a presentation of applications of developments by our fieldused by these other branches of science (like medipix), or is it to hear from other sciences what their needs are? Another area that you might want to consider to include is beam instrumentation. Q2: conveners. Two conveners per track seems fine. I presume the conveners are at liberty to choose session conveners. The responsibilities of the conveners should be clearly stated. If their charge is also to review all the contributions of their track for the proceedings you may want to give them some liberty in recruiting more people. Q3: Plenary talks What I think would be veryinteresting is to have a talk by ASML, for example. Actually, I could easily see two talks by them. One on their vision for the future of that industry and one being a more technological talk that describes the broad range of technologies that they include in some of their products. I also would think that a high-level talk by someone like Robbert Dijkgraaf on the science drivers would be much appreciated. These talks would complement the normal overview talksof the key areas of the field. Q4: broad appeal My only recommendation is to give your industry participants as much opportunity as possible to interact with the participants. Just an industry exhibit often falls short. Simple things as organizing coffee breaks and a reception in the industrial exhibit areais often very much appreciated by the vendors. I hope this is useful. Thanks, -- Marcel ---------- Doorgestuurde bericht ---------- From: Christian Joram Dear all, please find below a couple of comments and suggestions. Best regards Christian Q1: Categorization of tracks I find the five parallel tracks fine, but we aren���t fully consistent in how we attribute the topics I) ���Sensors��� are the basic detecting elements. Semiconductors, gaseous and photon are fine in this category, scintillators may be added. Perhaps also an open class (exotic stuff). But I don���t think that calorimetry should appear here. For me calorimetry is implicitly included in track II) which I would call ���Experiments and sub-detectors���. II) ���Experiments (and subdetectors)���. I don���t think that we need an extra category for LHC. Couldn���t point a) become ���Experiments at accelerators���. d) could be opened up to include searches for axions etc. I wouldn���t consider gravitational wave detectors part of TIPP (PP = Particle Physics). III) Data processing. OK. Would simulation belong here, too ? I don���t mean the use of a simulation code but the conception, creation or extension of models and codes. IV) Here I fully agree with Marcel. Both established and emerging technologies should be considered. But this is perhaps obvious for a conference on technology and instrumentation. V) I don���t see a particular problem here. Concerning beam instrumentation: yes, it is true that there are more and more detectors (often diamond based) at the interface between machine and experiment. For me these are included in II). One has to decide whether classical beam instrumentation shall be in the scope of TIPP 2014. Apparently it was in 2011. Q2: Conveners. Am I right that the senior conveners will be recruited from the International Advisory Committee? This is at least a practice I know from some other conferences. Q3: I need more time and would like to come back to this point once the tracks are fully defined. Q4: I fully support these ideas. ____________ Christian Joram �� CERN / PH Department �� CH-1211 Geneva 23 �� Tel. +41 22 76 78909 ---------- Doorgestuurde bericht ---------- Van: *Sytze Brandenburg* Datum: dinsdag 10 september 2013 Onderwerp: TIPP 2014 letter Aan: Frank Linde Frank, Ik mis versnellers (ik pleit daarmee natuurlijk voor mijn eigen winkel, maar toch...). Versnellertechnologie uit de diverse stukken van SAF heeft altijd zijn weg gevonden naar de industrie. Dat moet wel zo blijven. Een concreet voorbeeld dat in de pijplijn zit: gebruik van ILC cavities voor een electronenversneller die via photon-geinduceerde reacties 99mTc maakt, het workhorse van moleculaire imaging. Potentiele vervanging van reactoren. Ik ga er volgende week kijken. Sytze