MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 1 MICE collaboration meeting 12 at Frascati...

1MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005

MICE collaboration meeting 12 at Frascati-- Introduction --

MICE: progress and challenges


Why MICE?

Based on Muon collider ideas and development (Palmer et al, 92->), the Neutrino Factory concept (Geer, 1998) resonated in 1998 with the final demonstration of Atmospheric Neutrino Oscillations by the SuperK Collaboration.

International workshops:NUFACT 99 (Lyon, France)NUFACT 00 (Montery, California) NUFACT 01 (Tsukuba, Japan)NUFACT 02 (London, UK)NUFACT 03 (Columbia,NY,USA)NUFACT 04 (Osaka, Japan)NUFACT 05 (Frascati,Italy)

Neutrino Factoryis the ultimate tool for study of Neutrino Oscillations-- unique source of high energy e

--reach/sensitivity better by order(s) of magnitude wrt other techniques (e.g. super-beams) for

** matter effects **

*** leptonic CP violation ***

**** e and ****

NB : leptonic CP violation is a key ingredient in the leading explanations for the mystery of the baryon-antibaryon asymmetry in our universe

e+ e

_


~NOvA +PD


17 December 2004 Council Meeting, J.Feltesse 13

Recommendations

• CERN should make every reasonable effort to deliverthe approved p.o.t. to CNGS.

• Future neutrino facilities offer great promise for fundamental discoveries. CERN should join the worldeffort in developing technologies for new facilities : Betabeams, Neutrino Factory…wherever they are sited.

• Focus now on enabling CERN to do the best choice by 2010 on future physics programme.

• Explore further synergies with EURISOL

encouraging signs from CERN… report from Scientific Policy Committee to council

MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 5

Avenues identified as promisinga) Superbeam alone + large detector(s) (e.g. T2HK, NOvA) a) SuperBeam + Beta-Beam + Megaton detector (SB+BB+MD) Fréjusb) Neutrino Factory (NuFact) + magnetic detector (40kton)+…

The physics abilities of the neutrino factory are superior but….. « what is the realistic time scale? »

(Hardware) cost estimate of a neutrino factory ~1B€ + detectors. This needs to be verifed and ascertained on a localized scenario (CERN, RAL…) and accounting. The cost of a (BB+SB+MD) is not very different

Cost/physics performance/feasibility comparison needed

An ambitious neutrino programme is a distinct possibility, but it must be well prepared to have a good proposal in time for the big decision period in 2010 (Funding window: 2011-2020)

‘scoping study’


Detectors (NEW!)

Water Cherenkov (1000kton)Magnetized Iron Calorimeter (50kton)Low Z scintillator (100 kton)Liquid Argon TPC (100 kton)Hybrid Emulsion (4 kton)

Near detectors (and instrumentation)

Physics

compare performance of various options on equal footing of parameters and conventionsand agreed standards of resolutions, simulation etc.

identify tools needed to do so (e.g. Globes upgraded)

propose « best values » of baselines, beam energies etc..

Accelerator: M.Zisman -- proton driver (energy, time structure and consequences)-- target and capture (chose target and capture system) -- phase rotation and cooling -- acceleration and storage

evaluate economic interplays and risksinclude a measure of costing and safety assessment

AB

+ Ken Long

Peter Dornan

MICE and the SCOPING STUDY…


Time scales:

NUFACT05 (Sunday 26 June 2005) launch of scoping study

September 2005: ISS report0

NUFACT06 (summer 2006) discussion of results of scoping study

September 2006 ISS report

2007 full design study proposal

2010 conclusions of Design Study & CDR

NB: This matches well the time scales set up at CERN


Particle physicist: Q: Can a Neutrino Factory be built?

Accelerator physisicst: A: YES! (US Study II, CERN)

but… it is expensive, and many ingredients have never been demonstrated!

R&D is needed. (est. 5yrs) to 1. ascertain performance2. reduce costs

among critical items:

***Target***

*** COOLING ***

Cooling component development programme+ ‘blast test’: MUCOOL collabration (US-Japan-UK)

*** Acceleration ***


IONIZATION COOLING

principle:

this will surely work..!

reality (simplified)

….maybe…

Difficulty: affordable prototype of cooling section only cools beam by 10%, while standard emittance measurements barely achieve this precision.Solution: measure the beam particle-by-particle

A delicate technology and integration problem Need to build a realistic prototype and verify that it works (i.e. cools a beam)Difficulties lay in particular in operating RF cavities in Mag. Field, interface with SC magnets and LH2 absorbers What performance can one get?

state-of-the-art particle physics instrumentation will test state-of-the-art accelerator technology.

RF Noise!!


Incoming muon beam

VariableDiffuser

Beam PIDTOF 0

CherenkovTOF 1

Trackers 1 & 2 measurement of emittance in and out

Liquid Hydrogen absorbers 1,2,3

Downstreamparticle ID:

TOF 2 Cherenkov

Calorimeter

RF cavities 1 RF cavities 2

Spectrometer solenoid 1

Matching coils 1&2

Focus coils 1 Spectrometer solenoid 2

Coupling Coils 1&2

Focus coils 2 Focus coils 3Matching coils 1&2

10% cooling of 200 MeV/c muons requires ~ 20 MV of RF single particle measurements =>

measurement precision can be as good as out/ in ) = 10-3

never done before either…


200MHz RF cavity with beryllium windowsLiquid-hydrogen

absorbersScintillating-fiber tracker

Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment

Status: Approved at RAL(UK)First beam: 04-2007

Funded in: UK,CH,JP,NL,USRequests: Be,CH,It,JP,US

Single-beam ~200 MeV/c

4T spectrometer I

4T spectrometer II

TOF

Cooling cell (~10%)=5-45cm, liquid H2, RF

Final PID:TOFCherenkovCalorimeter

Aims: demonstrate feasibility and performance of a section of cooling channel

Main challenges:RF in magnetic field!10-3 meas. of emittanceSafety issues

Some prototyping:


Some challenges of MICE:

1. Operate RF cavities of relatively low frequency (200 MHz) at high gradient (16 MV/m) in highly inhomogeneous magnetic fields (1-3 T)

dark currents (can heat up LH2), breakdowns

2. Hydrogen safety (substantial amounts of LH2 in vicinity of RF cavities)

3. Emittance measurement to relative precision of 10-3 in environment of RF bkg

requires low mass and precise tracker low multiple scattering redundancy to fight dark current induced background excellent immunity to RF noise

require complete set of PID detectors (INFN)

And…

4. Obtaining funding for R&D towards a facility that is not (yet) in the plans of a major lab


NUFACT002000-2001

NUFACT01 7:30 am Sept. 2001November 2001 January 2002 June 2002 January 2003 July 2003October 2003

December 2003 June 2004 20 December 2004

March 2005

Re-activated the recognized need for muon cooling expt Workshops on Muon Cooling Experiment

(CERN, Chicago, London) Steering group formed Workshop at CERN where final experiment took shape. Letter of Intent (LOI) submitted to PSI and RALPSI cannot host experiment, will collaborate (beam solenoid)RAL IPRP Review Panel encouraged submission of a proposalProposal submitted Recommendation by International Peer Review Panel‘Scientific approval’ letter by RAL CEO JohnWoodProject Manager appointed (P. Drumm, RAL)RAL CM: collaboration charter approvedGateway 1 review Gateway 1 passed on ‘amber’Gateway 2/3 passed 10 green + 4 amber (MICE PHASE I)

Release of funding approved by PPARC and CCLRC 9.7 M£

MICE is an international effort from the start.


at this point MICE (PhaseI) is an approved and funded project in 5 countries

-- UK: 9.7M£

-- USA: 1.2 M$ approved for next three years (NSF+DOE) ( +RF source + MRI proposal -- some success) + propose to build solenoid magnet within MC budget (+ longer term plan for Coupling coil) (Zisman at CB) -- Japan: US-Japan ~$100k/yr, UK-Japan (travel funds) (+ 500k$ requested)

-- Switzerland: PSI solenoid + Uni-Geneva-NSwissF (80KCHF/yr)+ 1 PDA+1PhDS -- Netherlands: Mag probes (in production!) + 1 PhDS

+ Proposal submitted in Italy (TOF, Calorimeter) and Belgium (Cherenkov)

MICE is CERN recognized experiment RE11.


- STEP I:

April 2007

STEP II: October 2007

STEP III: 2008

STEP IV: 2008

STEP V2008?

STEP VI 2009?2009?

implementation in steps

physics-based: understanding of

systematics

all configurations successfully

matched optically

PHASE I

PHASE II


MICE is being designed simulated reviewed MOU’ed dug prototyped and built!


SIMULATION

-- beam line : Turtle (Kevin Tilley) + G4beamline (Tom Roberts) match input beam (quads and dipoles) to MICE (solenoid) 600 ‘good muons’ per ISIS spill should be achievable 10-3 emittance measurement in 1 hr (stat) (work to do for diffuser, variety of optics, etc…)

-- optics (Bob Plamer, Ulisse Bravar) ICOOL all steps of MICE have been optically matched

(but not to the beam) both in flip mode and solenoid mode

(proposed by Migliorati et al)

-- physics simulation (G4MICE, Y. Torun et al)


SIMULATION and software.

RF emission of X-rays (Rikard Sandstrom)

less than 10-3 differencebetween true and reconstructed

Sci-fi simulation of the measurementincludes noise dead channels etc..(Malcolm Ellis et al)

Left G4MICE

Right ICOOL

t

E

G4MICE-ICOOL comparison Chris Rogers

good to 20 ps and a few 100 keV

‘Students are taking over the project’

‘Simple things should be easy and complicated things should be possible’

Yagmur Torun

EMCAL(Rome, Frascati)


requirements on spectrometer system:

1a reject incoming e, p, TOF 0, TOF1) 1.b reject outgoing e => TOF2, Cerenkov + Calorimeter

2. measure x,y,Px, Py E (tracker) and t (TOF counters) to build 6D emittance particle by particle

3. resolution better than 10% of width at equilibrium emittance

meas = true+

res = true [ 1+ (res/ true

)2 ] (correction less than 1%)

4. robust against noise from RF cavities

Sci-Fi tracker was validated with calculations based on G4MICE-- experimental input from prototype (dead channels, efficiency, resolution)-- calculated spectrum and time structure of RF field emission based on LabG 800MHz-- still will need to be scrupulous about multiple scattering in tracker stepIII

Sci-fi prototype II presently assembled test at KEK in magnetic field (october)


Now same exercize needs to be done for TOF

requires measured 50ps resolution

double layer scintillator

construction of TOF0 prototype this year (Milano,Pavia, Padova, Geneva) funding available (GVA), proposal submitted (Italy)

bias on longitudinal emittance ratio

1%

50ps

from tracker energy resolution

TOF0 (R4998 Hamamatsu with Bicron scintillator)


DAQ, controls and monitoring working group

aims

understand what instrumentation is needed and what data are needed at which frequency (per spill, per muon, independently)

in order to perform comparison of data with simulation at the level of 10-3

started to meet here at Frascati, will have dedicated workshop

(so far: Bross+Yoshida+Graulich+Radicioni+Drumm will need some accelerator physicists!)


RF module

MICE is foresen with 8 RF cavitiesClosed with curved Be windows(increase gradient / MW RF power)201 MHz

First cavity prototyped(MUCOOL)

Completion in April 2005

RF power sources : Will be assembled from equipement refurbished from Berkeley, Los Alamos, CERN, RAL.Needed 8 MW peak power 23 MV acceleration Operation at LN2 foreseen to increase Volts / MW


Initial inspections of 4616 circuits

LBL equipment arrived Jan 05

Initial inspections4616 circuits look ok !

RF circuits arrived from LBNL to Daresbury Lab.

MICE test area at Daresbury

Moss


MICE Muon Beam

Design integration:Beam line and shielding, cryogenicsMICE:

Support systems, RF, services, …

26MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005Paul DrummMICE Project Manager

Prof. John Wood RAL CEO

MOU for PSI solenoid counter-signed


Hydrogen Safety

Safety Review process under way

Internal review organized in Berkeley in Dec. 2003 Reviewers: D. Allspach (FNAL), G. Benincasa (CERN), M. Seely (Jlab), L. Starritt (NASA), J. Weisend (SLAC), J. Wells (RAL)

Evacuated buffer tank needed? NOBurst valves and relief valves? YESSeparate vents for vacuum and hydrogen? YES

Detailed answers issued. Proceeding now to full safety revue (toward fall 2005)to be set up at this meeting


Design and safety working groupnominated to ensure that

MICE is designed and built according to appropriate and safe engineering and according to RAL safety rules.

This will happen with 3 successive milestones

internal audit

external review (production readiness)

external review (OK to operate)

production reviews pertinent to PHASE I will have to be passed ***before end 2005*** …!

Document Review

Review

FINALDocument

Audit

Operate

RAL Review

RAL


Time Line

It will be timely (…and not too soon!) to have by then a full design for a cost-optimized neutrino factory, with no questions about practical feasibility of ionization cooling

If all goes well and funding is adequate, Muon Ionization cooling will have been demonstrated and measured precisely by

2009

At that time: MINOS and CNGS will have started and measured m13

2 more precisely J-Parc-SK (and reactor expt?) will be about to start (13 measurement) LHC will be starting as well


MICE is getting REAL!

First beam 1st April 2007

**** 365*2 - 88 = 642 days to data taking !!!


AIMS of the meeting:

• review ongoing activities

• design and safety reviews: where do we stand? • are we on track to be ready to take data in April 2007?

• design of diffuser, impact on running strategy?

• see formation of DAQ Controls and Monitoring group

• continue to broaden simulation effort analysis forum

• creation of editorial board foreseen in MICE constitution

NB: we had 6 contributions to PAC05

NB we strongly encourage everyone to document their work within the framework of MICE with MICE Notes!


Editorial BoardThis body approves publications from the Collaboration. Two types of publications are foreseen.

Collaboration PublicationsThese publications are issued as ‘MICE Collaboration’ publications and it is expected that all active members of the collaboration will sign. All analysis results from the experimental data are expected to be in this category as are descriptions of the experiment as a whole and its performance. These must be approved by the Editorial Board.

Limited PublicationsPublications by a limited number of members of the collaboration concerning e.g. the construction and performance of specific subcomponents of the experiment. They are not issued as ‘MICE Collaboration’ publications, however it is recommended that these papers are also submitted to the Editorial Board for approval so that the management are aware of them and can advise of any possible conflicts with other members which may occur.

MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 1 MICE collaboration meeting 12 at Frascati...

Documents

Transcript of MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 1 MICE collaboration meeting 12 at Frascati...