Home Documentation E-mail Notes Meetings Search

LHCb RRB-Ml 98-1

20 February 1999

LHCb

Minutes of the 1st RESOURCES REVIEW BOARD Meeting

(Held at CERN on 14th September 1998)

Present: Brazil: C. Aragao (CNPq), L. de Paula; China: C. Jiang; Finland: A. Leinvuo (Espoo Technology Center), 0. Bouianov; France: B. D'Almagne (IN2P3), J. Lefranqois; Germany: R. Beyer (BMBF); M. Schmelling (MPIK); Italy: L. Mandelli (INFN), C. Matteuzzi; Netherlands: G. van Middelkoop (NIKHEF), W. Ruckstuhl; Romania: C. Coca (Institute of Atomic Physics); Russia: R.I. Dzhelyadin (Ministry of Science and Technologies); Spain: M. Aguilar-Benftez (CIEMAT), B. Adeva; Switzerland: P. Burkhard (NSF); G. Chapuis (Lausanne University), A. Bay; United Kingdom: I.F. Corbett (PPARC), N. Harnew; USA: B. Cox.

CERN: L. Maiani, R.J. Cashmore, L. Fo (chairman), V.G. Goggi, D. Jacobs (secretary), C.H. Llewellyn Smith, J. May, A.J. Naudi, H. Wenninger.

LHCb: H.-J. Hilke, T. Nakada.

Introduction

The Chairman, L. Fo, thanked the participants to the first LHCb Resources Review Board (RRB) meeting for their presence. He stressed the importance of the RRBS for the life of the LHC Collaborations, since each brings together all the Funding Agencies contributing to the experiment. For LHCb, the role of the RRB will be very important in the coming period when the Memorandum of Understanding, which sets out all the commitments and responsibilities of the Funding Agencies and Collaborating Institutes, is being defined. It will be following all the managerial proposals of the Collaboration for the attribution of work and contracts, the distribution of Common Funds and the financial support to the experiment in general. Later it will have a part to play in the definition of the agreement on the sharing of Maintenance and Operations costs. Last but not least, it will be following and helping with such problems as arise from year to year.

Although LHCb is only now approved, it traces its origin to 1993 when there were three different Letters of Intent for B-physics at the LHC. All were deficient in various respects. In particular, two did not use the machine in collider-mode. The proponents were asked to reconsider and, as a result, a single Letter of Intent for LHCb was received in 1995. Much R&D work was then required to demonstrate the feasibility of the experiment, which culminated in the Technical Proposal presented this year and recommended for approval by the LHC Committee (LHCC). While the LECC is a technical and scientific body that checks the feasibility of the experiment and the soundness of the physics proposal, the Research Board, in order to give its approval to the experiment, also requires advice on organisational matters such as funding and manpower. It is the role of the RRB to give such advice that is the reason to call the first meeting ahead of that of the Research Board and out of phase with the other three experiments. The next RRB for LHCb will be in April 1999 at the same time as the RRBs for ATLAS, CMS and ALICE.

2. Welcome

C.H. Llewellyn-Smith, the Director-General of CERN, welcomed in turn the participants at the meeting. He emphasised the importance of the LHCb physics goals, the primary one being to study the origin of CP violation. The socalled Standard Model of particle physics, developed over many years, can accommodate CP violation but as yet the experimental measurements are not sufficiently constraining to show that it is the correct description of thephenomenon. It is possible that better measurements of CP violation will permit break-throughs to some improved model "beyond the Standard Model". CP violation is also very important on the cosmological scale where it may well be behind the observed overwhelming excess of matter compared with antimatter in the universe.

LHCb is the last of the four major LHC experiments to enter the approval process. It is smaller in physical size than the other three and so will take less time to prepare but it is not to be considered as of lower priority.

Like the others, it should be ready to take data as soon as the LHC is commissioned. The machine construction is on schedule and within the announced budget, and beams should be available in mid-2005.

Addressing those attending an RRB meeting for the first time, the Director-General re-emphasised the fundamental importance of these bodies to the experiment construction projects. Experience with the RRBs for the other experiments had been good and he was confident that the LHCb RRB would be no exception.

Lastly, the Director-General passed on a message, not specific to LHCb, for those attending from less-developed countries. CERN has been in discussion with UNESCO about provision of funds to bring people to CERN from developing countries. Some years ago a grant of 60 kUSD per year was obtained to bring people to CERN Summer Schools. Recently he had asked the DirectorGeneral of UNESCO if it might be possible to supplement this with a number of Fellowships and was pleased to announce that he had received a positive response. Such Fellowships can be accommodated within the existing UNSECO Fellowship scheme and interested scientists from developing countries should apply via their national commissions for UNESCO. The UNESCO DirectorGeneral has instructed the Sector of Natural Sciences and Fellowships Division to ensure that all due consideration is given to such requests. The Dire ctor-General encouraged those concerned to avail themselves of this opportunity.

3. Presentation of the Experiment and Collaboration

After welcoming the delegates, T. Nakada, the LHCb Spokesperson, presented the experiment and the Collaboration. Copies of his overheads are attached (LHCb RRB-D 98-2).

Overview of the Experiment

Taking up the point made by the Director-General, T. Nakada confirmed that, like the other experiments at LHC, LHCb aims to look for new physics "beyond the Standard Model". In contrast, however, to ATLAS and CMS, which look primarily for new "real" particles, LHCb will be studying "virtual" particle effects. This method has often in the past enabled fundamental quantities to be established such as the Charm quark mass from K' oscillations in 1974 and the Top quark mass from B' - _ff 'oscillations in 1987.

CP violation was first discovered in KL decays in 1964. It is an interference phenomenon and, as such, can "amplify" new physics. B-meson systems are particularly promising environments in which to search for CPviolating effects. They have many decay modes, for some of which, such as CP asymmetry in Bd-> J/y Ks, the Standard Model makes clear predictions. The work involves trying to observe B - Bbar oscillations as was done in the past for the K - Kbar system. The oscillation period gives the mass difference between two B eigenstates, while the amplitude gives information about the CP-violating effect.

Within the Standard Model, quark transitions are described by the socalled CKM matrix elements, which form a unitary 3*3 matrix. There are thus four free parameters. Along with data on s and b quark decays, a measurement of B - Bbar oscillations would allow a consistency test to be made on these parameters. Such a test will probably be done before LHC start-up.

There may of course be new physics that introduces new virtual particles. In the example of B - Bbar oscillations, this would result in four additional parameters to be pinned down. The pattern of parameter values could give information on the nature of the new physics. All of this would require a minimum of three new independent measurements (two of them with B. mesons). In fact more would be needed to be sure of resolving any numerical conspiracy that may tend to hide the new physics.

For the Bs and Bd systems there are several such measurements for which there are clean Standard Model predictions. To make these measurements requires a large sample of Bs and Bd and places rather demanding requirements on the experiment itself, which must be capable of resolving final states with hadrons only, with very small branching ratios and with "fast" 70, as well as having very good decay time resolution. Experiments that are presently running or are planned in the near future are all somewhat deficient in these respects in one way or another. Nevertheless it can be hoped that by 2005, all taken together will have resulted in accurate measurements of |Vub I Vcb I and CP asymmetry in Bd J/y Ks at this point there will either be signs of new physics, which will require further precision measurements in different decay channels to pin-down, or continuing consistency with the Standard Model, which leaves the chance that a numerical conspiracy is still hiding new physics.

Starting at this time, the LHC machine will offer good opportunities for further investigations in this direction, providing a large sample of different fast b-hadrons with a reasonable ratio of s b to s inelastic. An experiment is needed that has an efficient trigger for hadronic final states, good particle identification for e/m/p/K/p and good decay-time resolution. This is exactly what LHCb is designed to do. One can of course ask if either of the two general-purpose detectors, ATLAS and CMS, could achieve the same results. When the comparison is made, it is seen that LHCb has significant advantages in the early trigger levels, in time resolution and in particle identification.

LHCb will be installed at IP8 (presently occupied by DELPHI). It is designed as a single-arm spectrometer covering only the forward region, which fits well with the strongly forward and backward peaked b-b production distribution and gives about the same acceptance as a large central detector. The beam intersection point is displaced to one side of the underground cavern, into which the LHCb detector will fit without any major civil engineering work.

Reviewing the components of the detector as defined in the Technical Proposal, T. Nakada first drew attention to the Vertex Detector, constructed from Si microstrips with an rf geometry. After this there is a series of tracking chambers for the momentum fit. Due to the high occupancy close to the beam-pipe, a technology such as MSGCs or MCSCs will be used there, while the outer

regions will use honeycomb technology drift chambers. There are two RICHs, the first with two different radiators, between them covering the required momentum range from I to 150 GeV/c. The calorimeters are composed of a Shashlik ECAL and a Tile HCAL, with a single Preshower detector layer in front of them. The Muon System uses Multi-gap Resistive Plate Chambers in the outer regions and Cathode Pad Chambers in the inner parts. The technical choices adopted have clearly benefited much from ATLAS, CMS and HERA-B developments. Nevertheless, LHCb poses several unique challenges, since its aim of measuring CP violation in many decay channels requires wider physics scope, leading to the use of three RICH radiators and to the need for a more open trigger. This is designed to be flexible, with four different levels, robust and efficient, especially for high p, leptons and hadrons, and for the presence of secondary decay vertices, both of which features can enrich the sample of events with B-mesons. Level 0 is aimed primarily at high p, Level 1 at secondary vertices, further refined by Level 2, while Level 3 aims at partial or full reconstruction of final states. Calculations indicate an overall efficiency around 30% for all decay channels and show that the hadronic trigger is especially important for identifying final states with hadrons only, while the lepton trigger is important for final states with leptons.

Summarising the reasons for the physics capability of LHCb, T. Nakada pointed to the efficient lepton, hadron and highpT trigger, the particle identification, and the good decay time and mass resolution. Apart from its main physics goals, it will be in a good position to study other new physics that may emerge, such as rare decay modes. The Technical Proposal already presented the possibility of the study of several such modes.

Status of the experiment

T. Nakada referred to the information already given by L. Fo and the Director-General, emphasising that the Collaboration is now working towards the Technical Design Reports (TDRs), which will define the final detector design and will necessitate R&D specific to LHCb, as well as prototypes for all subsystems.

The LHCb Collaboration

The LHCb Collaboration involves fourteen countries, eight of which are CERN Member States, and comprised (at the stage of the Technical Proposal) 333 individuals from a total of 42 participating Institutes. It is managed at the overall level by two organs: a Collaboration Board, as the policy defining body, with one representative per institute (present chair N. Harnew) and a Plenary Meeting which is open to all members. The detailed management is carried out by a Management team composed of the Spokesperson (T. Nakada himself), aided by a Deputy (to be chosen) and the Technical Co-ordinator (H.J. Hilke). In turn, responsibility for specific components is carried by Subsystem Co-ordinators and responsibility for cross-system optimisation by Working Group Co-ordinators. The Collaboration is currently forming groups of Institutes to work towards the TDRs for the various subsystems.

Conclusions

Concluding, T. Nakada said the Collaboration believes that the LHCb experiment is essential for studying CP violation in the B-meson systems in order to discover new physics. The detector as described in the Technical Proposal fulfils the necessary requirements for the experiment. The experiment will run at a luminosity of 2*1 012 and will thus be able to tackle its full physics programme from the beginning of LHC operation. The Collaboration is ready to proceed to the next step, the detailed design of a detector on the scale of a LEP experiment. Approval is therefore needed now in order to be ready in time for LEP start-up in 2005.

Discussion

L. Maiani added a comment on the physics motivation of the experiment, stressing the importance of the intention to measure CP violation in several channels. This will be absolutely essential since the Standard Model will always be able to fit any single measurement by choice of a suitable f(r ,h ).

L. Mandelli (IT) asked for a more quantitative comparison with the B-factories which, in 2005, will have been running for more than five years. T. Nakada showed figures indicating that LHCb will achieve significantly smaller errors on the angles (a and b in one year's running than BaBar/BELLE, CDF/D0 or HERA-B can achieve overall up to that time.

The RRB took note of the report of T. Nakada.

4. & 5. Presentation and Discussion of the Interim Memorandum of Understanding (IMoU), and Common Projects and Common Funds.

These two points were taken together since the second is covered in the material of the first.

H.J. Hilke, the LHCb Resources Co-ordinator, presented the Interim Memorandum of Understanding (IMoU). This carries the number LHCb RRB-D 98-1. H.J. Hilke pointed out that the document was still in draft form and that comments were welcome. It is largely based on the equivalent documents prepared for ATLAS and CMS. He noted that points c) and d) in the Preamble (the recommendation of the experiment by the Research Board to the CERN Director General and his subsequent approval with a cost ceiling of-786 MCHF in 1998 prices) were still outstanding but should be completed by the end of the week.

L. Fo added the clarification that the IMoU is a transitional document with a validity of a year or two. The RRB will be asked to discuss, approve and sign a full Memorandum of Understanding. This will set out the detailed commitments after much preparatory work has been done, in particular the preparation and approval of the TDRs (expected, with one exception, to be in the years 2000 and 2001).

H.J. Hilke went on to emphasise that the IMoU has no legal implications and simply expresses the firm intentions of all parties to carry out the work as described. The parties are the Institutes and their Funding Agencies on one hand and CERN, both as a Collaborating Institute and Host Laboratory on the other.

Article 4 contains comments on the detector and the way in which the Collaboration approaches resources. The Collaboration classifies its resources under three headings as recommended by the LEC Cost Review (CORE) Committee). The design, construction and installation costs of the detector itself are centrally monitored but this is not so for R&D work as well as Institute infrastructure and operating costs. For practical reasons, the detector is divided into a number of sub-systems, the responsibility of individual sets of Institutes as well as several Common Projects that involve all. The costs (in 1998 Swiss Franc prices) are contained in Annex 4, while first estimates of the contributions from Funding Agencies to the construction are given in Annex 5. In most cases the figures represent the requests submitted by the Institutes.

There follows in Article 5 a short description of the immediate programme of work and milestones, including the present sharing of responsibilities as shown in Annex 5 and the list of Common Projects in Annex 3.2. Contributions to Common Projects may be in cash or in kind, as for the other experiments. It is still too early to discuss this sharing in detail.

To cover the case of any small delay in the elaboration of the full MoU, provision is made for an eventual extension of validity of the IMoU.

Article 7 describes the obligations of CERN as the Host Laboratory and of the Institutes, while Article 8 covers administrative and financial provisions.

H.J. Hilke next reviewed the contents of the annexes, pointing out that they form an integral part of the IMoU as a basis for the work over the coming years, with the obvious proviso that the names of the individuals occupying some positions may well change during this time.

The organisational structure outlined in Annex 2.1 is substantially simpler than those of the other LHC experiments but, on the basis of experience with LEP experiments, is felt to be adequate.

The subsystems are detailed in Annex 3.1, using the same scheme as in the cost document.

The detector cost estimate (Annex 4) was already given in the Technical Proposal and the numbers have not changed. H.J. Hilke emphasised the substantial cost saving resulting from the absence of any new excavation in the experimental hall and the maximum re-use being made of the existing infrastructure. The detailed cost planning (as reviewed by the CORE Committee) has been endorsed by the LHC Committee. Out of the whole range of com-ponents, three items have been identified as Common Projects: the Dipole Magnet (16.5 MCHF); the on-line, controls and control room server parts of the Data Handling (6 MCHF) and about half of the infrastructure, consisting of the rails and the long-distance cabling and piping (2 MCHF). This gives a total of

24.5 MCHF, which will be funded pro rata from the total contributions of the Funding Agencies, either by cash payments to a Common Fund or in kind. H.J. Hilke noted that the individual detector ceiling costs are presently rough estimates and may be re-balanced amongst themselves before the start of construction, while still respecting the overall ceiling.

Annex 5 gives, for information, the known information on the requests for contributions made to the Funding Agencies. H.J. Hilke commented on several of the numbers. In Brazil a request for 0.824 MUSD has been made to CNPq and it is intended to request a further 0.4 MUSD from other Agencies. For China the amount given is the equivalent of 1 MUSD, the assumed contribution. For France the amount given covers the period 1999 to 2004. For Germany there are two Funding Agencies, the BMBF and the Max Plank Gesellschaft, and the amounts are converted from DM. For Italy the amount corresponds to a 10 Mrd L contribution to detector subsystems plus the pro rata contribution to the Common Fund and covers the period up to the end of 2003. For the Netherlands the amount corresponds to a 5.25 MFL request that has been standing for some time and a 3 MFL request that was added later. For Russia the amount corresponds to the 5 MUSD discussed in Spring but the present situation is unclear. For the UK, the present request is for 3.5 MGBP and there is strong hope that this will be increased in the future. The US intended to place a request for about 1 MUSD but this had to be postponed following statements from the DOE. The 12 MCHF marked for CERN has been for some time in the long-term planning of the Organization. Overall the present total is 77.4 MCHF. There thus remains a gap to be filled compared with the estimated cost.

Moving on to the Schedules (Annexes 6 and 7), H.J. Hilke noted that many of the subsystems are being worked on in parallel and the plan is to compress the detector installation into a maximum of nine months starting in mid-2004. This short installation time-scale is possible because of the large independence of the detector subsystems compared with the "onion layer" design of the big general-purpose experiments and is very important for LHCb due to its comparatively late start relative to the others. Of course it is planned to install much of the infrastructure before this time, starting in spring 2003. One large item, the Dipole Magnet, will also be installed earlier, during the third quarter of 2003, since it has to undergo tests in the pit. Work must unfortunately stop during the last quarter of 2003, when LHC injection tests will send beams through the area. The cool-down and field measurements of the magnet will thus take place in the first quarter of 2004, leaving three months "slack" before detector installation starts. The detector groups have estimated that construction of their subsystems will take between two and three years, implying 'that the TDRs allowing construction work to commence should be ready between mid-2000 and end-2001, with the exceptions of the magnet (end-1999) and computing (mid2002). Annex 7 gives the major milestones for this work. In addition, sets of detailed milestones for each subsystem have been drawn up and discussed with the referees for the LHC Committee.

Annex 8 shows the sharing of responsibilities for the initial phase.

L. FoA expressed satisfaction that most TDRs are not required until 2001, allowing time for useful feedback from the other B-experiments that will already be taking data at that time.

L. FoA went on to ask if the cost estimate is already based on re-use of some of the excess iron from the present neutrino beam. H-J. Hilke replied that use of this iron is not yet accounted for. Were it to be possible, the overall cost ceiling would reduce to 82 MCHE

I. Corbett (UK) expressed concern that the construction of the magnet, a charge against the Common Fund, is foreseen to start already in mid-2000, while the formal construction phase, marked by the signing of the MoU, is only foreseen to begin in 2001. It must therefore be considered under what authority the earlier spending on the magnet will be made. L. FoA replied that it is indeed inevitable that negotiation on the MoU will continue to near the end of 2001. Nevertheless, it is clear that the magnet must be ordered earlier and so an arrangement must be found to do this within the provisions of the IMoU. 1. Corbett suggested that the wording on the validity of the IMoU` should thus be made more precise, along the lines "this IMoU will be valid until replaced by the MoU but in any event no later than 31 December 2001". He felt that, for the magnet, it would be necessary to get a subset of the Collaboration to underwrite the purchase, as was done in effect for CMS. H-J. Hilke added that the down payment required at the time of order of an item such as the magnet is only about 10% of the total cost. The spending profile would thus likely be 1.2-2 MCHT towards the end of 2000, with the larger amounts in 2001 and 2002. The sharing between these years can be negotiated with the firm. He showed a tentative spending profile for the experiment (copy attached, LHCb RRB-D 98-3) that shows this and also the profiles under the other main headings. The spending on the yoke is somewhat later than for the coil. For the detectors it is hoped to be able to start construction as early as possible in 2001. The spending on the DAQ system is deliberately left until later to benefit from probable advances in technology. Overall the two peak spending years will be 2002 and 2003.

6. Declarations of Funding Prospects for the Full Construction Period

L. Fo noted that this fundamental point appears only once on the RRB Agenda for any experiment. It is the first time that the Funding Agencies make statements. It is obviously too early to give precise commitments but it is nevertheless essential as part of the process of approval of the experiment to give some indication what could be the magnitude of the contribution of every Funding Agency. It is also useful to give comments on the reasonableness of the requests listed in Annex 5 of the IMoU. He asked each Funding Agency to make comments in turn.

For Brazil, C. Aragao reported the result of a visit to Brasilia with B. Marechal, the Brazilian representative on the Collaboration Board. The project was presented to the President of the Research Council who assured them that Brazil would contribute to the Common Fund should the experiment be approved and appeared to consider the 0.824 NIUSD request for detector

construction to be reasonable. A more detailed request was subsequently submitted for seven annual contributions of 200 kUSD, giving a total of 1.4 MUSD. No final commitment has been received but, at the suggestion of the President, a workshop will be held in November in Rio, at which details of the experiment and the Brazilian part of the project will be presented to members of the CNPq. It is hoped to have a clearer indication of likely participation by then. C. Aragao said that, at the present time, he was authorised to say that Brazil will participate in the Common Fund and will be studying participation in detector construction at the levels indicated in the IMoU.

No representative of the Chinese Funding Agencies was present.

For Finland, A. Leinvuo noted that the participating Institute is the Funding Agency. Its resources are somewhat limited but sufficient budgets for the work in 1998 and 1999 have been approved. He could not comment further about future contributions since financing arrangements are not yet settled. Nevertheless, while recognising that the request is 0.6 MCHF, he already felt 0.3 MCHF to be reasonable.

For France, B. D'Almagne spoke for the three IN2P3 institutes involved in LHCb. The LHCb project was presented to the IN2P3 Scientific Committee at the time the Technical Proposal was being prepared and received a very positive scientific assessment and encouragement to proceed. The present funding projection could lead over the considered period to an investment of 7.5 MCHF but the difference between this and the 8 MCHF request should not be looked on as significant at the present stage. The final involvement will depend on factors such as the detailed composition of the experimental teams and it can be hoped that more physicists or even more laboratories will join the project.

For the Bundesministerium fr Bildung und Forschung (MPI) in Germany, R. Beyer said that the request from the four German groups had been received but there were several reasons why an indication on the intended level of funding could not be given. The Scientific Advisory Board, which would make a recommendation on participation, would only meet the following week. Also the budgetary situation up to 2005 was not clear enough to allow a firm statement to be made on the level of funding that can be given to LHCb. The BMBF has a strong priority for its commitments to the three LHC experiments already approved and it must be seen how much remains for LHCb. It is hoped that the situation will be clear in Spring 1999. The third reason is that all the four requesting Institutes are already involved in B-physics projects, especially BaBar and HERA-B. It is thought desirable that they should finish the development and construction work for these experiments (also foreseen for Spring 1999) before launching on a further one. Pressed by L. Fo, R. Beyer indicated that the request of 9.2 MCHF is felt to be optimistic.

For the Max Plank Gesellschaft (MPI) in Germany, M. Schmelling said the MPI considers it has a firm commitment towards LHCb and thinks the 2.5 MCHF request to be reasonable, subject to some minor corrections. The amount quoted is the total amount of available funding without salaries and

travel money and so not all of it contributes to CORE costs. In addition, the MPI funding is distributed annually and is thus subject to modulation, along with the risk of cost over-runs in other parts of the programme such as HERA-B.

For Italy, L. Mandelli said that a meeting had just taken place of the Board that considers accelerator-based experiments both from the scientific and financial points of view. His statement, which he then read, was based on the outcome of this meeting as well as other factors: "The INFN congratulates the Collaboration for the work done and agrees to participate to the LHCb experiment. It will make all efforts to ensure its success. However, the size and technical resources of the presently interested INFN groups are modest and do not allow the specification of either the INFN construction responsibilities or the financial envelope. We invite the Collaboration to concentrate the INFN responsibilities on a maximum of two subsystems (compared with four at present). The INFN financial contribution will depend on the strengthening of the Italian groups and on their responsibility, and is difficult to define today. Note also that, in the present INFN financial situation, the maximum full possible contribution will be lower than that quoted in Annex 5 over the full construction period. Furthermore, due to the present financial and technical commitment of INFN to the other LHC experiments, we invite the Collaboration to prepare a schedule with a financial and technical profile being significant only once the peaks due to ALICE, ATLAS and CMS are over." On the basis of the profiles shown he though the mismatch should not exceed one year. The overall message is that a lot of work is needed in Italy to strengthen the Collaboration and only after that can serious thought be given to contribution levels.

For the Netherlands, G. van Middelkoop explained that NIKHEF represents both the Funding Agency, FOM, and the Universities involved. NIKHEF is prepared to contribute the 5.25 MFL quoted in Annex 5. The extra 3 MFL must be looked on as a future request.

For Roumania, C. Coca explained that she was replacing the normal representative on the RRB, Professor V. Lupei. She read a message from Professor Lupei stating that Romanian interest in LHCb is strong. Concerning the funding prospects for the full construction period, Romania remains committed to LHCb. A formal application for financial support has been made and is subject to ministerial approval. The sum quoted in Annex 5 is therefore for the moment considered reasonable.

For Russia, R.I. Dzhelyadin, representing the Russian Ministry for Science and Technologies (RMST), noted that Russian teams have been participating in LHCb preparation for 3-5 years already. Four years ago it was considered that Russia would participate in LHCb at the level of 2 MUSD. Since that time the involvement has increased and so the request has risen to 5 MUSD. The RMST received this request and was planning to make an actual decision some 1-1.5 years after the approval of the experiment, allowing time to balance the needs with those of the other LHC experiments. Nevertheless, the amount was not considered to be unreasonable. Funding possibilities have now, however, become uncertain and the RMST plans a meeting in October to try to give an indication of the possible level of Russian funding for LHC-related activities.

For Spain, M. Aguilar-Benftez said he wished to clarify that the Spanish Funding Agency is FIFIP and not CIEMAT as written in Annex 1.2 of the WoU. FIFIP considers that the 2 MCHF quoted is rather high if only one Spanish group is involved. If, however, as is now being discussed, more groups join, then a figure in the range 1.5-2 MCHF is not considered as unreasonable.

For Switzerland, P. Burkhard, representing the National Science Foundation (NSF), noted that he could not make an official statement since, as for other experiments, the Swiss NSF does not wish to be involved directly in the RRB. Nevertheless, the Swiss participation in LHCb will be supported half by the NSF and half by the University of Lausanne. He noted that the amount of the contributions would depend on votes in Parliament. Under optimistic assumptions, the NSF budget will be kept constant but any contribution to highenergy physics must also be balanced with obligations to support other branches of science. He felt that the 6 MCHF quoted, while not being unrealistic, was very optimistic.

For the UK, I.F. Corbett said that PPARC was convinced of the interest of the experiment and was taking steps to strengthen the groups participating. The amount of money quoted is not felt to be unreasonable.

No Ukrainian representative was present.

For the US, B. Cox said that issue had never been the amount of money quoted but rather the reluctance of the DoE to engage the US Congress in yet another LHC experiment so close after the discussions on CMS and ATLAS. The matter is thus on hold until the time is felt to be right to approach Congress. The amount of money quoted is, however, not felt to be unreasonable.

Finally, for CERN, L. Fo confirmed that the 12 MCHF quoted is in the plans of the Organization.

7. Summary and Future Activities

Summarising, L. Fo noted that the overall message to the Collaboration is to strengthen several of the constituent groups in order to support the requests made. He thanked the delegates for their statements and said that the next step is to read carefully the draft IMoU and propose corrections. It will again be discussed at the April RRB and at some point there will hopefully be convergence, allowing its signature in order to cover the experiment for the next few years. The discussions on funding must also clearly be pursued. At the moment the experiment does not have the full funding necessary for its construction as described. The Collaboration can certainly make plans to cope with this situation but needs to know as soon as possible what funding will actually be available. Future meetings of the RRB will clearly be concerned with the detailed definition of the detectors and efforts to reduce their cost.

8. Any Other Business

L. Fo introduced his successor Professor R.J. Cashmore, who would be taking over as Director responsible for LHC experiments from January 1999.

It was subsequently decided that the next RRBs would take place on:

Monday, 26 April 1999 for LHCbJ1 the Plenary Session and ATLAS, and

Tuesday, 27 April 1999 for CMS and ALICE.

The Autumn meetings will be on Monday 25 and Tuesday 26 October.