ALEPH in 1999 Alain Blondel, Ecole Polytechnique

1
International Muon Ionization Cooling
Experiment (MICE)
Motivations --Ionization cooling is an
important ingredient in performance and cost of
a neutrino factory --It has never been observed
experimentally --It is a delicate design and
engineering problem Goal --design, engineer,
build a section of cooling channel that is
part of a high performance neutrino factory
design --put it in a beam and show that it works
as expected (if not, understand why!)
The beam never lies. This is a somewhat larger
project that can be afforded by anyone of the
worlds regions gt International collaboration
2
n
p
m
MICE
An International Muon Ionization Cooling
Experiment
3
10 cooling of 200 MeV muons requires 20 MV of
RF single particle measurements gt measurement
precision can be as good as D ( e out/e in )
10-3
SC Solenoids Spectrometer, focus pair,
compensation coil
Liquid H2 absorbers
201 MHz RF cavities
Tracking devices
Tracking devices Measurement of momentum angles
and position
T.O.F. III Precise timing
T.O.F. I II Pion /muon ID and precise timing
Electron ID Eliminate muons that decay
4
10 cooling of 200 MeV muons requires 20 MV of
RF single particle measurements gt measurement
precision can be as good as D ( e out/e in )
10-3
Need same drawing for 200 MHz scenario!
5
(No Transcript)
6
MICE what will it measure?
Equilibrium emittance 4200 mm. mrad(here)
Cooling Performance 16
Figure V.4 Cooling channel efficiency, measured
as the increase of the number of muons inside an
acceptance of 0.1 eV.s and 1.5 p cm rad
(normalized), corresponding to that of the
Neutrino Factory muon accelerator, as a function
of the input emittance 31. 28 MeV cooling
experiment (kinetic energy Ei200 MeV)
7
Steering committee Europe A. Blondel1 , H.
Haseroth, R. Edgecock Japan Y. Kuno US
S. Geer, D. Kaplan2, M. Zisman convener
for coming year, 1 EU spokesperson, 2 US
spokesperson charge assemble  technical team 
representing two regions in each of the
following aspects.
Web site http//hep04.phys.iit.edu/cooldemo/ tha
nks to Yagmur Torun - torun_at_iit.edu
8
Participating institutes (In parentheses
contact person in each institute)   Louvain La
Neuve (G. Grégoire)   CERN (H.
Haseroth)   NESTOR Institute (L.
Resvanis) University of Athens (L.
Resvanis) Hellenic Open University (S.
Tzamarias)   INFN Bari (G. Catanesi) INFN LNF
Frascati (M. Castellano, L. Palumbo) INFN Legnaro
(U. Gastaldi) INFN Milano (M. Bonesini) INFN
Padova (M. Mezzetto) INFN Napoli (G. Osteria)
INFN Roma I (L. Ludovici) INFN Roma II (L.
Catani) INFN Roma III (L. Tortora) INFN Trieste
(M. Apollonio)   pending the review of CERN
activities in accelerator RD which will take
place in the framework of the LHC
cost-to-completion analysis.
KEK (S. Ishimoto) Osaka University (Y.
Kuno)   ETH Zurich (A. Rubbia) Paut Scherrer
Institute (C. Petitjean) University of Geneva (A.
Blondel) University of Zurich (A. Van der
Schaaf)   Imperial College London (K.
Long) Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (R.
Edgecock) University of Birmingham (J.
Wilson) University of Oxford (G. Barr)  
9
  Participating institutes (ctd) (In
parentheses contact person in each
institute)     Argonne National Laboratory (J.
Norem) Brookhaven National Laboratory (R. Palmer)
Columbia University (A. Caldwell) Fairfield
University (D.Winn) Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory (S. Geer) Illinois Institute of
Technology (D. Kaplan) Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory (M. Zisman) Michigan State University
(M. Berz) Northern Illinois University (M. A.
Cummings) Princeton University (K. McDonald)
University of California Los Angeles (D.
Cline) University of California,
Riverside/Indiana University (G.
Hanson) University of Chicago Enrico Fermi
Institute (K.-J. Kim) University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign (D. Errede) University of Iowa
(Y.Onel) University of Mississippi (D. Summers)
10
Technical Team leaders for the
ionization cooling experiment
These nominees in
charge of task forces have the following
responsabilities a) assemble the necessary
team b) if possible recommend a technical
solution c) foresee a description of the
design/performance/cost estimate of their part.
11
a) concept development and simulations
Alessandra Lombardi (CERN)(Alessandra.Lombardi_at_cer
n.ch) Panagiotis Spentzouris (FNAL)
(spentz_at_fnal.gov) Robert B Palmer (BNL)
(palmer_at_bnl.gov) b) Hydrogen absorbers
Shigeru Ishimoto (KEK) (shigeru.ishimoto_at_kek.jp) M
ary-Anne Cummings (Northern Illinois)(
macc_at_fnal.gov ) c) RF cavities and power
supplies Bob Rimmer (LBNL) (rarimmer_at_lbl.gov) Rol
and Garoby (CERN) (Roland.garoby_at_cern.ch) d)
magnets Mike Green (LBNL) magreen_at_lbl.gov
Jean-Michel Rey (CEA Saclay) e) particle
detectors Vittorio Palladino (INFN Napoli)
vittorio.palladino_at_na.infn.it Alan Bross (FNAL)
bross_at_fnal.gov f) beam lines Rob Edgecock
(RAL) edgecock_at_mail.cern.ch Claude Petitjean
(PSI) claude.petitjean_at_psi.ch g) RF radiation
Jim Norem (Argonne)norem_at_anl.gov Ed McKigney (IC
London) e.mckigney_at_ic.ac.uk
12

Proposed agenda 2001 Expose
detectors to RF radiation (potential show
stopper) write first
description of experiment with two options
US design (200 MHz) or CERN design (88 MHz)
US simulate CERN
scheme and vice versa if possible Evaluate
availability and cost of main cost drivers
RF cavities /
amplifiers/ power supplies/solenoids
for each scheme
evaluate beams host labs 1st
workshop 25-27 October 2001, CERN ! 16 Nov.
2001 ! Chose technology host lab, write
submit LETTER OF INTENT 2002 Technical
proposal summer 2004 1st beam (debugging of
spectrometers)
13
MICE
Item BASELINE SCENARIO
ALTERNATIVE(s) COMMENTS
200 MHz
88 MHz
.. Difficult to present 88 MHz in present CERN
financial situation. 88 MHz Nufact study should
continue!
RF frequency
SFOFO with focus pairs One 4-cell cavity first
then 2 4-cell cavities
Single flip solenoid
Question can same set of magnets be used
with/without flip?
Should we foresee stronger than minimum mag
field to explore stronger focusing?
Sealed with He cooling circuit (KEK design)
Tunable thickness?
L-H2 absorbers
With recirculating H2 circuit
Experimental solenoid
60 cm(?) diameter, 3 T 120 cm long,
DB/B1 active shield 30 cm diameter active area
.. 40 cm diameter with slits for detectors ..
iron shield
B field should be matched to that of cooling cell
14
MICE
Item BASELINE SCENARIO
ALTERNATIVE(s) COMMENTS
PSI Beam line exists, can be used for particles,
with P lt 250 MeV/c without delay. New
collaborator! RAL quite motivated.
Host lab
RAL
PSI
mE1 with energy 100-300 MeV can begin with
100-200 MeV
Requirements well defined
Beam
beam preparation 10 meters after last collimator
Experimental area gt 15 X 4 m2
Lateral space needed has not been investigated
carefully!, foresee some margin.
Space required
Will request interaction with host labto prepare
proposal
Safety
Liquid Hydrogen Magnetic field
spectrometers
In vacuum/helium with double window
Loss of resolution in air to be evaluated
In air with triple window around hydrogen
Noise issue must be solved before final design.
Interest in thin pixel detectors for LHC upgrades
Silicon pixel may be needed if noise level too
high TPC- G ?
Scintillating fiber planes gt 4 planes with 3
coord each side
Trackers
PSI beam very clean at low energy
PID
upstream
TOF with scintillators
Fast cerenkov
Requirement not entirely clear
Downstream PID
Threshold Cerenkov
Active absorber
15
(No Transcript)
16
PSI
The MICE Letter of Intent (LOI) was presented to
the Research committee for the Ring Cyclotron of
the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) on Tuesday 8
January 2002 public presentations were made to
the users meeting. (I was told by the chair of
the committee that the talks of Dan Kaplan and
Klaus Hanke were excellent and answered many of
the questions the committee and referees had,
such as why is this experiment important for the
Neutrino Factory RD.) The Committee
acknowledged the receipt of the LOI. On request
by the PSI management it did discuss the matter.
(conclusions given orally by the chair from my
notes no written statement yet) 1. The
Neutrino Factory project offers exciting physics
and the proposed experiment fits well within the
project. The strategic goal of the experiment,
which is to test a crucial part of the Neutrino
Factory design, was recognized. 2. The
committee supports the aim of the experiment but
expressed questions to the PSI management as to
whether it is appropriate for PSI to embark in
it. The concerns expressed by the committee were
as follows a) No formal organization (I.e.
laboratory) is behind the project. b) Hosting
MICE will be a non-negligible investment for PSI
it is not realistic to believe that PSI would
not have to provide day-to-day support for the
experiment, c) the requested technical help to
prepare a proposal and in particular the overview
of safety aspects, which need to be taken
very seriously by the host lab, constitute
already an important commitment. d) PSI
should consider the impact that this experiment
might have on the ongoing research program e)
It is not clear to which extent this RD is
important for the future of the laboratory (does
PSI want to play a major role in the
Neutrino Factory? This is a management decision!)
f) PSI is probably the best place to host the
experiment, but not the only one.
17
PSI
Next steps PSI management will meet and
evaluate if there are sufficient interest and
resources in the LAB to host and support the
experiment. Discussions are taking place with
the management of RAL to which the LOI was also
sent, with the aim of finding a solution by
which the experiment can take place. A formal
answer to our requests will be given in about a
month.
18
From Ralph Eichler (PSI director), 23 january
2002, 72755 Subject MICE Dear Alain, Here is
the status of decision making on the muon
cooling 1. Muon cooling is essential for muon
collider (no way out). A muon collider is very
far in the future and most likely the radiation
protection against neutrinos is a show stopper.
2. Three ideas for a neutrino factory exist
(Japan, RAL, yours). Two of them need little or
no cooling. Your Proposal need the largest
cooling. 3. I called John Wood director of RAL.
We agreed, the RAL and PSI should collaborate in
a muon cooling experiment. RAL will discuss
internally if they want to have the experiment at
RAL or PSI (time frame 2 weeks). In case the
cooling is at RAL, I offered to provide next year
our superconducting muon channel n 2 (5m 5T
field presently in muE4). I have the impression
that RAL is willing to inject much more manpower
into the project than PSI is able to provide. I
keep you informed of the next steps With best
regards, Ralph
19
Answers (A.B.)
1. Muon cooling is essential for muon collider
(no way out). A muon collider is very far in the
future and most likely the radiation protection
against neutrinos is a show stopper. The
neutrino radiation issue for muon cooliders
comes up at 3-4 TeV E.c.m. At lower energies,
relevant to the machines that have the unique
capability of s-channel studies of Higgs bosons
(SM and SUSY Higgses) the neutrino radiation is
not an issue. 2. Three ideas for a neutrino
factory exist (Japan, RAL, yours). Two of them
need little or no cooling. Your proposal need
the largest cooling. There are scenarios for
neutrino factories in US, Japan and CERN. The
only project that has been fully evaluated and
costed is the US one, and it uses cooling. The
CERN scheme relies even more on cooling. The
Japanes scheme is based on a series of several
FFAGs which have not been costed and in which,
in a way similar to the ring coolers, it is an
unsolved problem how to inject or extract the
beam. Having no cooling implies very large FFAG
magnets the horizontal aperture is large by
construction, but not the vertical one which
could raise the cost considerably. In fact there
are studies on how to implement cooling in an
FFAG scheme, very similar to ring coolers the
hardware needed for such cooling is very similar
to that discussed for MICE. 3. I called John
Wood director of RAL. We agreed, the RAL and PSI
should collaborate in a muon cooling experiment.
RAL will discuss internally if they want to have
the experiment at RAL or PSI (time frame 2
weeks). In case the cooling is at RAL, I offered
to provide next year our superconducting muon
channel n 2 (5m 5T field presently in muE4). I
have the impression that RAL is willing to inject
much more manpower into the project than PSI is
able to provide. Great! Thank you very much for
handling this so seriously!
20
(No Transcript)
21
This is the beam line ?E4 which will be
dismantled at the end of 2002
This is the beam line ?E1 where MICE could be
installed 2002
22
RAL
In order to satisfy the requirements of the
cooling experiment the following upgrades to the
beam are required       The pion peak must be
moved up to at least 450 MeV/c       The
background to the muons must be reduced by a
large factor       The rate of muons must be
increased by increasing the length of the pion
decay channel.     Proposed upgrade The beam
required by the cooling experiment can be
provided if the HEP Test Beam is upgraded by
Decreasing the angle at which particles are
captured into the beam line This will increase
the rate of particles entering the beam line as
well as moving the peak of the captured momentum
to higher values Implementation of a solenoid
pion decay channel The length of the solenoid,
typically 5-6 m, allows a significant fraction of
the input pions to decay therein, and the high
longitudinal magnetic field (5 T) captures the
decay muons with high efficiency thereby
increasing the muon intensity. Simulations of
these changes in the layout of the beam are in
hand.
23
MICE and the LHC cost to completion crisis
It was anticipated that CERN would have very
little resources to devote to the cooling
expt., the LOI only ascribed the value of a
refurbished RF power source (4 MW, essential),
which was assumed to come in a couple years
(2004 or so) CERN now has to concentrate on the
completion of LHC, and the material budget for
Neutrino Factory has been radically cut (despite
your protests, thanks!). The RD is assumed to
be focused on the proton driver SPL, and possibly
the target and horn(?). At the same time, the
director of accelerators (Carlo Wyss) has
proceeded to convene a European Muon
Coordination and Oversight Committee (EU-MCOG)
that will be composed of leading personalities
in Europe. CEA- Saclay 2 members (Mosnier,
Pierre) IN2P3 2 members (Lieuvain,
Katzanevas) INFN 2 members (Napolitano,
Pisent) RAL 2 members (Peach, NN) GSI
Darmstadt 2 members (Hofmann, NN) Julich,
PSI, Novosibirsk, to be decided, DESY
declined This committee will review the RD
towards future neutrino beams and define a first
set of goals. It will also coordinate a fund
request from the European Union. Maybe this not
all so bad after all. Lets go on.
24
 2002 The schedule of activities can be
envisaged as follows, assuming all milestones are
passed successfully.   2002 Preparation of
proposal and fund raising     IIntegrated
simulation of experiment including beam,
detectors and cooling cells CRITICAL        
Evaluation of possible sources of systematic
errors         Investigation of low equilibrium
emittance lattice and of the compatibility with
ring coolers         Continuous comparison of
the 200 MHz and 88 MHz scenarios         Test of
detectors in X ray environment (already underway)
CRITICAL and choice of tracking
devices         Operation of 88 MHz cavity at
CERN and of the test facilities at
Fermilab         Continued development of liquid
hydrogen absorbers Development of alternative
schemes for absorbers         Competitive design
and cost estimates for the solenoids    Constitut
ion of a collaboration structure and more
detailed distribution of tasks and financial
responsibilities         Evaluation with the
host laboratory of the requirements on space,
facilities, safety and radiation issues, and
infrastructure   Submission of proposal in the
course of 2002.
25
. Observed dark currents in 800MHz cavity in lab
G. The cavity could not be run at a gradient
higher than 5 MV/m without emitting one electron
or more within a time window of 20 ns. (i.e. 10-8
mA)  
Q. Is this the right figure of merit? Better
probably observed noise rate in
actual detector near the cavity.
26
gt 6.70 MV/m
gt 4.65 MV/m
.43 X 4 cells 1.7 m ? 11.5 MV for 1X 4 6.70
MV/m
16 MV for 2X4 4.65 MV/m Is this correct?
27
Simulations
Needed now understand what is the noise level
that affects the performance of each particular
proposed detector scheme. Understand tolerances
on spectrometer solenoid Needs simulation and
reconstruction including noise and
inefficiencies. We have now DWARF (Patrick
Janot) rather fast fortran code that contains a
rudimantary helix fitting code. Not impossible
to implement Exact field map (Bx,y,z of
x,y,z) Noise hits Pattern recognition?
GEANT4 (Yagmur Torun) Multipurpose tracking
code. Noise hits and pattern recognition and
fitting code need to be added by hand too. Will
allow detailed detector response (for Cerenkov
and e/mu absorber study)
28
PRIORITIES

• Find a home for the experiment
• Understand the X ray issue and quantify it in
  terms of
• particle detector performance
• 2. Develop reconstruction with noise and
  efficiencies
• 3. Chose detectors and finalize magnet parameters
• 4. Establish technical specs and cost estimates
• 4 Distribute contributions and begin fund hunt
  mission
• 5. write proposal