The PrimEx-I Beam line. A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, 2010 2 MC Results for the PrimEx-I configuration Beam Background on HyCal: Energy Distribution.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

NDVCS measurement with BoNuS RTPC M. Osipenko December 2, 2009, CLAS12 Central Detector Collaboration meeting.

Advertisements

Monte Carlo simulation of the background for the Drell-Yan COMPASS Marialaura Colantoni Laboratory of Nuclear Problems Dubna Marialaura.

Beam-plug and shielding studies related to HCAL and M2 Robert Paluch, Burkhard Schmidt November 25,

EAR2 simulation update Collaboration board meeting Christina Weiss & Vasilis Vlachoudis.

Simulations with ‘Realistic’ Photon Spectra Mike Jenkins Lancaster University and The Cockcroft Institute.

1 Vacuum Requirements in the Detector Region from Beam Gas and other Considerations Takashi Maruyama (SLAC) LCWA 2009, Albuquerque October 2, 2009.

Status of the  0  Experiment A. Gasparian NC A&T State University, Greensboro, NC for the PrimEx Collaboration Outline  Physics Motivation  PrimEx-I.

Pair Spectrometer Design Optimization Pair Spectrometer Design Optimization A. Somov, Jefferson Lab GlueX Collaboration Meeting September

Hall D Photon Beam Simulation and Rates Part 1: photon beam line Part 2: tagger Richard Jones, University of Connecticut Hall D Beam Line and Tagger Review.

Projected results for OLYMPUS 1000 hours each for e+ and e- assuming two (of eight) sectors instrumented and Lumi = 2 x cm -2 s -1 – 100 mA on 3.

Diversion of Plasma in Beam Port with a Vertical Magnetic Field: 3-D Simulations D. V. Rose, D. R. Welch, and S. S. Yu Presented at the ARIES Project Meeting.

1 G4MICE studies of PID transverse acceptance MICE video conference Rikard Sandström.

Downstream e-  identification 1. Questions raised by the Committee 2. Particle tracking in stray magnetic field 3. Cerenkov and calorimeter sizes 4. Preliminary.

F.Brinker, DESY, July 17 st 2008 Injection to Doris and Petra Fitting the detector in the IP-region Radiation issues Beam optic, Target cell Polarisation.

J. Tinslay 1, B. Faddegon 2, J. Perl 1 and M. Asai 1 (1) Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Menlo Park, CA, (2) UC San Francisco, San Francisco, CA Verification.

GLAST LAT Project Test Beam Meeting, June 6, 2006 S. Funk 1/6 PS Positron Simulations Stefan Funk June 6, 2006.

Diversion of Plasma in Beam Port with a Vertical Magnetic Field D. R. Welch, D. V. Rose, S. S. Yu and W. Sharp Presented at the ARIES Project Meeting April.

5/10/20101GlueX Col meeting, A. Gasparian1 The PrimEx HyCal Calorimeter A. Gasparian NC A&T State University, Greensboro, NC Outline  HyCal calorimeter.

20 October, 2004GlueX Detector Review 1 The GlueX Detector Curtis A. Meyer This talk Next talk.

Experiment Rosen07: Measurement of R =  L /  T on Deuterium in the Nucleon Resonance Region. 1  Physics  Data Analysis  Cross Section calculation.

Design of the Photon Collimators for the ILC Positron Helical Undulator Adriana Bungau The University of Manchester Positron Source Meeting, July 2008.

Beijing, Feb 3 rd, 2007 LEPOL 1 Low Energy Positron Polarimetry for the ILC Sabine Riemann (DESY) On behalf of the LEPOL Collaboration.

Simulation of Positron Production and Capturing. W. Gai, W. Liu, H. Wang and K. Kim Working with SLAC & DESY.

Monte Carlo Comparison of RPCs and Liquid Scintillator R. Ray 5/14/04  RPCs with 1-dimensional readout (generated by RR) and liquid scintillator with.

Question and Answer 1) A weighted Monte-Carlo ray trace of particles exiting the target/magnet assembly for all primary beam energies showing: a) Where.

Spasimir Balev /CERN/ mrad 3 LKr simulation: – very slow, so only events with interesting topology are fully simulated: –  + with.

SHMS Optics Studies Tanja Horn JLab JLab Hall C meeting 18 January 2008.

Mean Charged Multiplicity in DIS, Michele Rosin U. WisconsinZEUS Monday Meeting, Apr. 18th Preliminary Request: Mean Charged Multiplicity in DIS.

Fixed Target Program in STAR Fixed-target running allows much higher rates without e-cooling at lower energies Top of  B range now ~ 400 MeV; extends.

M. Dugger, February Triplet polarimeter study Michael Dugger* Arizona State University *Work at ASU is supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation.

Update on the Hall C Monte Carlo simulation for 12 GeV Mark Jones.

Detector Monte-Carlo ● Goal: Develop software tools to: – Model detector performance – Study background issues – Calculate event rates – Determine feasibility.

G4 Validation meeting (5/11/2003) S.VIRET LPSC Grenoble Photon testbeam Data/G4 comparison  Motivation  Testbeam setup & simulation  Analysis & results.

First look at non-Gaussian tails with the new Reconstruction Stathes Paganis Univ. of Sheffield LAr-H8 Working Group, 18-Oct-05.

Kelli Hardy Compton Study from Experimental Data.

The PrimEx-I Beam line. A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, MC Results for the PrimEx-I configuration Beam Background on HyCal: Energy Distribution.

Recent Studies on ILC BDS and MERIT S. Striganov APD meeting, January 24.

Calo Calibration Meeting 29/04/2009 Plamen Hopchev, LAPP Calibration from π 0 with a converted photon.

Results From the Radphi LGD Dan Krop 12/11/03. The Radphi Experiment Radphi Experiment Took Data in Jlab Hall B From May to July Hours Of Beam.

IDS120j WITH AND WITHOUT RESISTIVE MAGNETS PION AND MUON STUDIES WITHIN TAPER REGION, III ( 20 cm GAPS BETWEEN CRYOSTATS ) Nicholas Souchlas, PBL (9/4/2012)

 0 life time analysis updates, preliminary results from Primex experiment 08/13/2007 I.Larin, Hall-B meeting.

Detector Here, we will only discuss a multi-purpose high-luminosity ep detector, not a dedicated lower-luminosity ep/eA detector as.

A. SarratILC TPC meeting, DESY, 15/02/06 Simulation Of a TPC For T2K Near Detector Using Geant 4 Antony Sarrat CEA Saclay, Dapnia.

Albert Riego, Guillem Cortes, Francisco Calviño July 22 th, 2015 Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Barcelona (Spain) Third BRIKEN WORKSHOP – IFIC (Valencia,

N_TOF EAR-1 Simulations The “γ-flash” A. Tsinganis (CERN/NTUA), C. Guerrero (CERN), V. Vlachoudis (CERN) n_TOF Annual Collaboration Meeting Lisbon, December.

Spin Tracking at the ILC Positron Source with PPS-Sim POSIPOL’11 V.Kovalenko POSIPOL’11 V. Kovalenko 1, G. Moortgat-Pick 1, S. Riemann 2, A. Ushakov 1.

Monitoring Energy Gains Using the Double and Single Arm Compton Processes Yelena Prok PrimEx Collaboration Meeting March 18, 2006.

JLEIC MDI Update Michael Sullivan Apr 4, 2017.

The MiniBooNE Little Muon Counter Detector

Heating and radiological

Update of the SR studies for the FCCee Interaction Region

The Interaction Region

γ γ-> hadron Background Events at CLIC

LSO Cal Geant4 Simulation

The PrimEx-I Beam line.

Update on GEp GEM Background Rates

Observation of Diffractively Produced W- and Z-Bosons

 Results from KTeV Introduction The KTeV Detector

Beam Background and the SVT Protection Collimator

° status report analysis details: overview; “where we are”; plans: before finalizing result.. I.Larin 02/13/2009.

The PrimEx-I Experiment

Parasitic Run Physics Simulations

Using Single Photons for WIMP Searches at the ILC

Monte Carlo simulation of the DIRC prototype

Energy Calibration with Compton Data

Preliminary Request: Mean Charged Multiplicity in DIS

Compton Data Analysis Jing Feng China Atomic Institute Liping Gan

Background Simulations at Fermilab

Some of the Points Raised During my JLAB Visit

Status of the cross section analysis in e! e

Presentation transcript:

The PrimEx-I Beam line

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, MC Results for the PrimEx-I configuration Beam Background on HyCal: Energy Distribution (arbitrary numbers) (Photons)/(All)=(50,250/72,980) = 69% (Charged Part.)/(All)=(22,730/72,980) = 31% Charged particles dominate at E> 1 GeV Photons dominate at E < 1 GeV Pay attention the Y-scale is LOG

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, MC Results for PrimEx-I confogureation: Beam Background on HyCal: XY Distribution (for illustration) Charged Particle Distribution on HyCal Photon Distribution on HyCal

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, Step #1: What if we take the Permanent Magnet off from the beam line? (Charged Particles only, for now) Conclusion #1 Permanent magnet effectively cuts the Charged background at less than ~1 GeV range. Total efficiency is a factor of 2. We need Permanent Magnet!!! Effect of the Permanent Magnet Field On the CHARGED background: B perm =0 KG, total Number=42,680 (188%) B perm =7 KG (the Current)= 22,730 (100%) B perm =14 KG (doubled) = 7,769 (34%)

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, Step #1: What if we take the Permanent Magnet off from the beam line? (All Particles now) Conclusion #2 Permanent magnet does not cut the Photon component of the background. But, the total net effect is ~30% reduction for 7KG We need Permanent Magnet!!! Effect of the Permanent Magnet Field on all particle background: B perm =0 KG, total Number=95,170 (130%) B perm =7 KG (the Current)=72,980 (100%) B perm =14 KG (doubled) = 47,600 (74%)

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, Step#2: Different Diameter Pb-Shieldings (B perm =7KG (current one), for now) Charged Particles Effect of the Pb-shield diameter on charged particle background: Diam.= 2.5”, total Number=32,050 (141%) diam.=1.53”(the Current) =22,730 (100%) diam.=0.8” = 8,801 (39%) Conclusion # 3 Pb-shield effectively cuts the Charged background at less than ~2 GeV range. Total efficiency is about factor of 2.5 We need smaller diam. Pb-shielding!!!

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, Step#2: Different Diameter Pb-Shieldings (B perm =7KG (current one) for now) Photons Only Effect of the Pb-shield diameter on Photon background: Diam.= 2.5”, total Number=56,160 (112%) diam.=1.53”(the Current) =50,250 (100%) diam.=0.8” = 28,970 (58%) Conclusion # 4 Smaller diam. Pb-shielding effectively cuts the Photon background also. Total efficiency: factor of ~2 We need smaller diam. Pb-shielding!!!

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, Background Relative Composition for 0.8” Pb-Shild and B perm = 0 KG Relative composition of particles for 0.8 inch diam. Collimator and Bperm = 0 KG All particles > 0.1 GeV (57,330)100% Photons (33,120 58% Charged particles (24,210) 42% Conclusion # 5 For this case Photon to Charged Ratio is about 50:50 Try to increase the Permanent Magnet !!!

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, Effect of B perm on Charged Background for 0.8” diameter PB-Shielding Relative cut efficiency of the Permanent Magnet for the fixed collimator (0.8 inch diam.) B(perm. m.) = 0 KG100% B(perm. m. ) = 7 KG 36% B(perm. m.) = 14 KG 10% B(perm. m.) = 21 KG 5% Conclusion # 6 For 0.8” Pb-shielding 7 KG or more field in permanent magnet is needed. We need smaller diam. Pb-shielding And higher Bdl permanent magnet !!!

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, XY-Distribution on HyCal for 0.8 “ Pb-Shielding (B perm = 0 KG) Charged Particle Distribution on HyCalPhoton Distribution on HyCal

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, XY-Distribution on HyCal for 0.8 “ Pb-Shielding ( B perm = 7 KG) Charged Particle Distribution on HyCalPhoton Distribution on HyCal

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, XY-Distribution on HyCal for 0.8 “ Pb-Shielding ( B perm = 14 KG) Charged Particle Distribution on HyCalPhoton Distribution on HyCal

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, Conclusion # 7 Next question is: do we gain if we try to extend the distance from Collimator to Pb-shielding ? MC simulations show that the optimum configuration for the PrimEx-II Beam line is: 1)Pb-shielding with the 0.8” diameter hole; 2)Permanent magnet with either one element (7KG) or two (14 KG)

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, Effect of Moving Down the Target and PS (+50 cm) on Beam Background for 0.8” diameter Pb-Shielding, All Particles Relative cut efficiency of the Permanent Magnet for the fixed collimator (0.8 inch diam.) PrimEx-I Conf., Bperm=7 KG100% +50 cm, Bperm = 7 KG 41% +50 cm, Bperm =14 KG 35% Conclusion # 7 For 0.8” Pb-shielding 7 KG or more field in permanent magnet is needed. We need smaller diam. Pb-shielding And higher Bdl permanent magnet !!!

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, Effect of Moving Down the Target and PS (+50 cm) on Beam Background for 0.8” diameter Pb-Shielding, Charged Particles Conclusion # 8 We need smaller diam. Pb-shielding And higher Bdl permanent magnet !!!

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, Effect of Main Collimator “Tapering” on Background Charged Particles, 14 KG Conclusion # 9 Tapered Collimator is better Everything is the same as was in the Previous slide only the down half of the Permanent magnet is “tapered” by 1 mm Relative efficiency of the main Collimator PrimEx-I Conf., + 50 cm down, Bperm=7 KG existed collimator 100 % 1 mm tapered collimator 74 %

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, Effect of Main Collimator “Tapering” on Background Photons, 14 KG Conclusion # 10 Tapered Collimator is better Everything is the same as was in the Previous slide only the down half of the Permanent magnet is “tapered” by 1 mm Relative efficiency of the main Collimator PrimEx-I Conf., + 50 cm down, Bperm=7 KG existed collimator 100 % 1 mm tapered collimator 65 %

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, Effect of Main Collimator “Tapering” on Background All Particles, 14 KG Conclusion # 10 Tapered Collimator is better Everything is the same as was in the Previous slide only the down half of the Permanent magnet is “tapered” by 1 mm Relative efficiency of the main Collimator PrimEx-I Conf., + 50 cm down, Bperm=7 KG existed collimator 100 % 1 mm tapered collimator 65 %

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, Effect of Main Collimator “Tapering” on Background All Particles, 21 KG Conclusion # 10 Tapered Collimator is better Everything is the same as was in the Previous slide only the down half of the Permanent magnet is “tapered” by 1 mm Relative efficiency of the main Collimator PrimEx-I Conf., + 50 cm down, Bperm=7 KG existed collimator 100 % 1 mm tapered collimator 58 %

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, Effect of Main Collimator “Tapering” on Background All Particles, 21 KG, 2 mm “tapering” Conclusion # 11 1mm wall tapered Coll. is enough! Everything is the same as was in the Previous slide only the down half of the Permanent magnet is “tapered” by 1 mm Relative efficiency of the main Collimator PrimEx-I Conf., + 50 cm down, Bperm=7 KG existed collimator 100 % 1 mm tapered collimator 63 %

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, Final Comparison of Background Net Gain All Particles Conclusion # 12 We expect ~5 times less background! The old PrimEx-I configuration vs. the Suggested new PrimEx-II configuration: (+50 cm, 21 KG perm. mag, 1mm tapered Collimator) Relative gain: PrimEx-I conf. 100 % sugg. PrimEx-II conf. 19 %

A. GasparianPrimEx-II Beam Line, August 5, Summary++ Based on the current Monte Carlo simulations: 1)We do not need to increase the Pb-shielding diameter; 2)The background on HyCal is significantly less for the smaller diameter Pb-shielding; 3) 0.8” diameter is the smallest we can have. It can be done by inserting a ~10 r.l. ring inside of the existing beam pipe (Dave Kashy); 4)“Tapered” main Collimator is another factor of 2 more effective 5) D. Kashy’s suggested version #3 is the best for the PrimEx-II beam line 6) It will potentially reduce the background on HyCal by factor of 5 7) Interactive Geant shows that +32 cm down for PS is not critical for the  0 run. Detail simulations for this part will be provided in next few days.