Beam direction and flux measured by MUMON K. Matsuoka (Kyoto) for the MUMON group Contents: 1.Horn focusing effect 2.Beam stability (direction/flux) 3.Beam.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Beam direction and flux measured by MUMON K. Matsuoka (Kyoto) for the MUMON group Contents: 1.Beam stability (direction/flux) 2.Absolute  beam flux.
Advertisements

HARP Anselmo Cervera Villanueva University of Geneva (Switzerland) K2K Neutrino CH Meeting Neuchâtel, June 21-22, 2004.
Test with cosmic rays at LNGS - final results - S. Bastianelli, L. Degli Esposti, R.Diotallevi, G. Mandrioli, P. Righini, G. Rosa, M. Sioli OPERA meeting,
The performance of Strip-Fiber EM Calorimeter response uniformity, spatial resolution The 7th ACFA Workshop on Physics and Detector at Future Linear Collider.
Preshower 15/03/2005 P.Kokkas Preshower September Run Data Analysis P. Kokkas.
Off-axis Simulations Peter Litchfield, Minnesota  What has been simulated?  Will the experiment work?  Can we choose a technology based on simulations?
May 14th 2004RD42 collaboration meeting1 Results with a CVD diamond at the K2K beam-line Jun Kubota(Kyoto Univ.) RD42 collaboration meeting May 14 th 2004.
1Calice-UK Cambridge 9/9/05D.R. Ward David Ward Compare Feb’05 DESY data with Geant4 and Geant3 Monte Carlos. Work in progress – no definitive conclusions.
Status of  b Scan Jianchun Wang Syracuse University Representing L b scanners CLEO Meeting 05/11/02.
1 KEK Beam Test Analysis Hideyuki Sakamoto 15 th MICE Collaboration Meeting 10 st June,2006.
April 1, Beam measurement with -Update - David Jaffe & Pedro Ochoa 1)Reminder of proposed technique 2)Use of horn-off data 3)Use of horn2-off data?
Jianchun Wang Marina Artuso Syracuse University 11/06/00 MC Simulation of Silicon Pixel Detector.
Status of the Beamline Simulation A.Somov Jefferson Lab Collaboration Meeting, May 11, 2010.
Simulation of direct space charge in Booster by using MAD program Y.Alexahin, N.Kazarinov.
14/02/2007 Paolo Walter Cattaneo 1 1.Trigger analysis 2.Muon rate 3.Q distribution 4.Baseline 5.Pulse shape 6.Z measurement 7.Att measurement OUTLINE.
Debbie Harris Sacha Kopp, Commissioning Workshop 1    Beam Monitoring Hadmon will see remnant protons Muon Monitors see whatever escapes beam.
CVD diamond detector as a beam monitor for a high intensity and high luminosity accelerator Kodai Matsuoka (Kyoto Univ.) for T2K muon monitor group.
Status of the NO ν A Near Detector Prototype Timothy Kutnink Iowa State University For the NOvA Collaboration.
V.Grishin, A.Koshelev, A.Larionov A.Pushkarev, V.Seleznev, M.Sleptsov A.Sytin.
Comissioning the NuMI Beam at Fermilab with Ion Chamber Arrays D. Indurthy, R. Keisler, S. Kopp, S. Mendoza, M. Proga, Z. Pavlovich, R. Zwaska Department.
Beam MC activity A.K.Ichikawa for beam group For more details,
Mass production (Super-K) Setup of jnubeam – 3 horn 250 kA – 30-GeV proton beam of Gaussian distribution (  x,y = cm) – On center, parallel beam.
Detector Monte-Carlo ● Goal: Develop software tools to: – Model detector performance – Study background issues – Calculate event rates – Determine feasibility.
1ECFA/Vienna 16/11/05D.R. Ward David Ward Compare these test beam data with Geant4 and Geant3 Monte Carlos. CALICE has tested an (incomplete) prototype.
K. Matsuoka (Kyoto Univ.) for T2K muon monitor group
Beam MC progresses for beam MC sub-group. Summary of update in 09b,c,10a 09b Geometry of baffle, target, 1st horn, dump and MUMON is updated. 09c MUMON.
Test beam preliminary results D. Di Filippo, P. Massarotti, T. Spadaro.
Min-DHCAL: Measurements with Pions Benjamin Freund and José Repond Argonne National Laboratory CALICE Collaboration Meeting Max-Planck-Institute, Munich.
Progress on F  with the KLOE experiment (untagged) Federico Nguyen Università Roma TRE February 27 th 2006.
Muon absolute flux measurement in anti-neutrino mode A.Ariga 1, C. Pistillo 1, S. Aoki 2 1 University of Bern, 2 Kobe University.
Abhilash Nair STAR Collaboration University of Illinois at Chicago 1 STAR.
T2K muon measurement 2014 Momentum module A.Ariga, C. Pistillo University of Bern S. Aoki Kobe University 1.
04/06/07I.Larin pi0 systematic error 1  0 error budget Completed items (review) Updated and new items (not reported yet) Items to be completed.
1 Status of the T2K long baseline neutrino oscillation experiment Atsuko K. Ichikawa (Kyoto univeristy) For the T2K Collaboration.
T2K Status Report. The Accelerator Complex a Beamline Performance 3 First T2K run completed January to June x protons accumulated.
 0 life time analysis updates, preliminary results from Primex experiment 08/13/2007 I.Larin, Hall-B meeting.
Muons at CalDet Introduction Track Finder Package ADC Corrections Drift Points Path Length Attenuation Strip-to-Strip Calibration Scintillator Response.
Progress Report on GEANT Study of Containerized Detectors R. Ray 7/11/03 What’s New Since Last Time?  More detailed container description in GEANT o Slightly.
06/2006I.Larin PrimEx Collaboration meeting  0 analysis.
Absolute Polarization Measurement at RHIC in the Coulomb Nuclear Interference Region September 30, 2006 RHIC Spin Collaboration Meeting RIKEN, Wako, Japan.
A. SarratILC TPC meeting, DESY, 15/02/06 Simulation Of a TPC For T2K Near Detector Using Geant 4 Antony Sarrat CEA Saclay, Dapnia.
MEG 実験 2009 液体キセノン検出器の性能 II 西村康宏, 他 MEG コラボレーション 東京大学素粒子物理国際研究セン ター 第 65 回年次大会 岡山大学.
Testbeam analysis Lesya Shchutska. 2 beam telescope ECAL trigger  Prototype: short bars (3×7.35×114 mm 3 ), W absorber, 21 layer, 18 X 0  Readout: Signal.
Particle identification by energy loss measurement in the NA61 (SHINE) experiment Magdalena Posiadala University of Warsaw.
Paolo Massarotti Kaon meeting March 2007  ±  X    X  Time measurement use neutral vertex only in order to obtain a completely independent.
XLVth Rencontres de Moriond Status of the T2K experiment K. Matsuoka (Kyoto Univ.) for the T2K collaboration Contents Physics motivations (neutrino oscillation)
Observation Gamma rays from neutral current quasi-elastic in the T2K experiment Huang Kunxian for half of T2K collaboration Mar. 24, Univ.
M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop1 M0’ linearity study  Contents : Electronic injection Laser injection Beam injection Conclusion.
1 Methods of PSD energy calibration. 2 Dependence of energy resolution on many factors Constant term is essential only for energy measurement of single.
Manoj B. Jadhav Supervisor Prof. Raghava Varma I.I.T. Bombay PANDA Collaboration Meeting, PARIS – September 11, 2012.
Characterization of muon beam in T2K with emulsion detectors A. Ariga, T. Ariga, C. Pistillo AEC-LHEP University of Bern 1.
K2K and JHF-nu muon monitor Jun Kameda (KEK) 1. K2K muon monitor 2. JHF-ν muon monitor 3. Summary International workshop on Neutrino Beam Instrumentation,
News from J-PARC: the system, the data and the simulation code
Beam test of Silicon-Tungsten Calorimeter Prototype
Positron production rate vs incident electron beam energy for a tungsten target
Preliminary result of FCC positron source simulation Pavel MARTYSHKIN
Luminosity Monitor Status
K2K and JHF-nu muon monitor
Status of the OPERA experiment
Panagiotis Kokkas Univ. of Ioannina
Detection of muons at 150 GeV/c with a CMS Preshower Prototype
Development of the muon monitor for the T2K experiment
Use of Beam Loss Monitor type detectors in CNGS muon station
MUMON / emulsion total flux uncertainty
Stability (fitted beam center)
Targeting Monitor in K2K
Neutrino Beam Profile Measurement
T2K Run8 MUMON Summary.
Run5 Analysis of RHIC-pC Polarimeter
Study of coherent c.s. dependence on Energy, what was done
Presentation transcript:

Beam direction and flux measured by MUMON K. Matsuoka (Kyoto) for the MUMON group Contents: 1.Horn focusing effect 2.Beam stability (direction/flux) 3.Beam scan on target 4.Absolute  beam flux and comparison w/ MC

Neutrino beam direction Measure ( ) beam direction by measuring muon profile center. (Another end is target) 1-mrad shift of the beam direction corresponds to 11.8-cm shift of the MUMON profile center. Requirement for MUMON: 3-cm=0.3mrad precision 2.5˚ Beam dump MUMON 295 km Target Horns p    118 m OTR Baffle

Basic Analysis method analysis has done by simple charge integration & 2D Gaussian fitting. for both online/offline analysis PedestalGate Silicon 80 mV for 3 x ppp wave form x 49 in some analysis, we also use total charge of 49 ch

Confirmation of Horn focusing 3 horns, 320 kA (shot# 47577), 2.16 x ppb, 6 bunch 1 st horn, 275 kA (shot# 47987), 2.10 x ppb, 6 bunch no horn, 0 kA (shot# 48704), 2.13 x ppb, 6 bunch peaksigmapeaksigma 1547 pC83 cm38.5 pC90 cm 467 pC95 cm13.2 pC104 cm 218 pC110 cm6.29 pC126 cm x2.1 x7.1

Stability of the beam direction Monitor the profile center obtained by the 2D Gaussian fit. During continuous 425 shots (Run: ) With 3 horns operation at 320 kA. Proton beam intensity (CT05): 2.15 x ppb x 6 bunches * 30-dB attenuators was used for the silicons.

stability (center position) Si, X centerIC, X center RMS = 2.9 mm RMS = 4.3 mm Si, Y centerIC, Y center RMS = 1.8 mm RMS = 2.3 mm Center values are different by ~1cm. Need check!

center position fluctuation Si X : 2.9 mm (1.2 mm from Si noise)  2.6 mm from beam ? Y : 1.8 mm (1.1 mm from Si noise)  1.4 mm from beam ? IC X : 4.3 mm (3.1 mm from IC noise)  3.0 mm from beam ? Y : 2.3 mm (1.6 mm from IC noise)  1.7 mm from beam ?

Stability (beam direction) (MUMON center)/(Dist.from target) No time dependent drift Beam direction was tuned well within 1 mrad. Monitor alignment should be checked. Further turning in Jan. Beam axis √ (x 2 + y 2 )

Stability (flux) incl. stability of beam+horn field+MUMON SiliconChamber RMS/Mean: 0.8%

stability (flux) CT normalized stability : 0.5% RMS CT stability : 0.5% (from Shibata-san’s talk) MUMON measurement error : 0.06 % (Si) & 0.14 % (IC) (estimated from pedestal RMS of this RUN)  consistent with CT stability RMS : 0.5 %

Si / IC stability RMS = 0.18 % consistent with estimated measurement error ( 0.06%(Si) %(IC) = 0.15% ) RMS : 0.18 %

Stability (flux) incl. beam+horn field+MUMON No time dependent drift

Beam scan on target Only horn-off data in Nov/Dec commissioning (1 st horn 273kA data in April/May commissioning) Scan w/ all horns will be in Jan/Feb. Opposite direction shift is expected. x target Proton beam were intended to shift in parallel. But angle change also existed

Beam scan on target - Center position- MUMON alignment? Beam angle effect? (0.3mrad) Target alignment? SSEM18-19 alignment?

Beam scan on target -Muon yield- Total Charge Peak charge Gap btw. Baffle and target? P beam  30mm  26mm baffle target Target center may be at -0.5~-1mm??

Absolute muon flux estimation Two methods in addition to the emulsion measurement A)Energy deposit calculation by MC.  Get the relation btw. muon flux and energy deposit in the detector B)Calibration by electron beam test Under study. Preliminary result is showing consistent result w/ A)

Estimation from MC energy deposit Energy deposit by all particles is summed up and divided by #muons Contrib. from  -rays generated outside detector and escape of  - rays generated inside detector are (automatically) taken into account E dep = 2420 MeV/(15266 muons) = keV/muon Ionization yield: Q = E dep / 3.6 eV x e 0 = =7.045 x 10 –3 pC/muon 2420 MeV Energy deposition in the silicon (MC) *Relying on estimation of  -ray contribution by Geant3. Bare Si measurement confirmed that the  -ray contribution is robust(~1% effect) against materials around.

Data  x : 95.0 cm MC  x : 107.7±1.3 cm 1 st horn 273 kA Data  x : cm MC  x : 127.9±3.7 cm Horn 0 kA Data  x : 69.7 cm MC  x : 84.6±0.6 cm 3 horns 320 kA Spill Spill Spill Comparison w/ MC (slice histogram) 0kA1 st Horn 273kA 3Horns 320kA Data/MC Error is still under study.

Profile comparison Data / MC (09c with emulsion shots) kA 220kA 0kA data MC

Summary Horn focusing effect Beam direction Tuned within 1 mrad (and will be further tuned.) Less than 0.03mrad (rms) fluctuation Beam flux <0.5% (RMS) fluctuation (maybe 0.06%) Target scan Horn-off data for target center determination Need more study to understand the obtained results Horn-on data will be taken in Jan./Feb. Absolute muon flux estimations and comparison w/ MC Agree with the emulsion measurement.

Supplement

Stability of the proton beam Run: Cont. 6-bunch operation Inc. monitor stability Stability of CT: 0.5% (Shibata-san’s talk) RMS: 0.1 mm RMS: 0.2 mm RMS/Mean: 0.9%

total charge error estimation 1 integrate 37 bins from gate start (1-bunch length) & sum up 49 ch off-center mean due to slow component of the signal RMS pC RMS pC

total charge error estimation 2 Si pC / nC x √6 = % RMS IC pC / 19.8 nC x √6 = % RMS pedestal RMS (1bunch) / total charge x 6 bunch

Uji electron beam test 6-coil CT Electronics calibration factor inc. AMP: (4.053±0.004) x 10 –3 pC/ADC Pedestal RMS: 17.9 (for 120 samples)  pC uncertainty IC Electronics calibration factor: (4.158±0.002) x 10 –2 pC/ADC

Energy loss comparison (Uji/T2K) Energy loss in the chamber (Ar + 2% N 2, 131 kPa, 34˚C) by MC Uji 100-MeV electron beam: keV/electron (av. of all particles; , e) T2K beam at the center: 4.755/4.824/4.443 keV/muon (1 st horn 0/220/273 kA)  ± keV/muon (av. of all particles; , e,  ) Uji beam T2K beam

A-1. Chamber calibration CT gain was calibrated by Suzuki-san ± (out/input charge) IC/CT from the Uji electron beam test Correction of energy loss diff. between the electron beam and the T2K muon beam (16%).  IC calibration factor: (4.80 ±0.25 ) x 10 3 muon/cm 2 /pC IC/CT = 128.0±0.2

A-2. Silicon calibration Si/IC ratio from high intensity beam data (horn off) ±0.09 Correction of the z-position difference (8%) Beam density at each position is different due to beam divergence.  Silicon calibration factor: 154 ±9 muon/cm 2 /pC

Absolute muon flux (chamber) CT efficiency by calibration: ±  CT factor: (4.019 ±0.003 ) x 10 7 particle/pC IC/CT (Uji): ±0.2 (Ar + 2% N 2, 130 kPa, 29.7˚C)  Uji IC factor: (3.140 ±0.006 ) x 10 5 electron/pC  (3.120 ±0.006 ) x kPa, 34˚C Energy loss in MC (Ar + 2% N 2, 131 kPa, 34˚C) Uji 100-MeV electron beam: keV/electron (av. of all particles; , e) T2K beam at the center: ±0.231 keV/muon (av. of all particles; , e,  )  T2K IC factor (“collected charge” to “muon flux” conversion): (2.70 ±0.14 ) x 10 5 muon/pC = (4.80 ±0.25 ) x 10 3 muon/cm 2 /pC

Absolute muon flux (silicon - Si/IC) T2K IC factor: (4.80 ±0.25 ) x 10 3 muon/cm 2 /pC Charge ratio at the center Si/IC in data (run , horn 0 kA): ±0.09 (–15 dB Att. is not calibrated, assuming ) Beam size:  x,y Si ±0.1, ±0.1,  x,y IC ±0.6, ±0.4 cm Muon flux ratio at the center of Si/IC plane in MC 1 st horn 0 kA: ±0.017 sta (  x,y Si 170 ±4, 166 ±4,  x,y IC 174 ±5, 177 ±5 cm) 1 st horn 220 kA: ±0.015 sta (  x,y Si 157 ±3, 162 ±3,  x,y IC 161 ±3, 182 ±5 cm) 1 st horn 273 kA: ±0.013 sta (  x,y Si 128 ±2, 125 ±2,  x,y IC 133 ±2, 139 ±2 cm)  ±0.018±0.013 sta  Si factor: 4.80 x 10 3 / (33.89 / 1.084) = 154 ±9 muon/cm 2 /pC

Absolute muon flux (silicon - dE/dx) MC estimation of energy deposit in the silicon plane at the center with 1 st horn 273 kA: E loss = GeV/(15266 muon) = keV/muon Ionization yield: Q = E loss / 3.6 eV x e 0 = x 10 –3 pC/muon  Si factor: muon/ pC

Comparison between Si and emulsion Muon flux ratio at the center of Si/emulsion plane in MC 1 st horn 0 kA: ±0.018 sta (  x,y Si 170 ±4, 166 ±4,  x,y IC 177 ±5, 183 ±5 cm) 1 st horn 220 kA: ±0.016 sta (  x,y Si 157 ±3, 162 ±3,  x,y IC 165 ±4, 188 ±5 cm) 1 st horn 273 kA: ±0.014 sta (  x,y Si 128 ±2, 125 ±2,  x,y IC 136 ±2, 145 ±2 cm)  ±0.032±0.014 sta Muon reduction rate at Si by the cut for the emulsion analysis (momentum > 0.05 GeV/c, angle < 0.3 rad) by MC 1 st horn 0 kA: momentum cut 0.024%, angle cut 2.1% 1 st horn 220 kA: momentum cut 0.026%, angle cut 3.4% 1 st horn 273 kA: momentum cut 0.052%, angle cut 3.6 ±1.2 sta %  3.65 ±1.5±1.2 sta %

Absolute flux (summary table) Silicon (Si/IC)Silicon (dE/dx)Emulsionjnubeam 10a 1 st horn 0 kA 1.04 ± ± ± st horn 220 kA 1.70 ± ± ± st horn 273 kA 2.30 ± ± ±0.02 Muon flux measured by each detector at the center emulsion (10 4 /cm 2 ) Silicon (Si/IC)Silicon (dE/dx)Emulsion 1 st horn 0 kA st horn 220 kA st horn 273 kA Muon flux ratio of each detector to MC

Absolute muon beam flux Silicon (chamber) measurement is consistent w/ emulsion one. Muon flux measured by each detector at the center emulsion (10 4 /cm 2 ) Correction of the z- position diff. is applied. Cuts for emulsion analysis is applied (p > 0.05 GeV/c,  < x ppb [ 3 horns 320 kA ] IC data/MC: 0.87