MEG I Accounting & Retrospective Peter-Raymond KettleMEG Fukuoka Meeting October 20131

MEG 2013 Accounting Peter-Raymond KettleMEG Fukuoka Meeting October Total of shifts (642 Normal, coordinator shifts) Basically ALL Shifts Quotas apart from some swap differences SATISFIED Exception: 2013 Shift List based on 58 Authors – Later Lecce added an extra Author making it 6 not 5! Agreed upon that accounting would as with previous instances be compensated for later Accounting Amendment

Final 2013 Accounting Peter-Raymond KettleMEG Fukuoka Meeting October These numbers in principle carry-over to MEG2 With this accounting taken into consideration – ALL MEG Institutes Fulfilled their Shift Quota Obligations, based on the % Authors within the Collaboration

MEG I Complete Accounting Peter-Raymond KettleMEG Fukuoka Meeting October Total MEG I Shifts: MEG I Active Authors: Total Shift Coordinators: 115 (optimized finally to 1 week duty) Engineering Run – end st Physics Run Last Physics Run

Statistics Peter-Raymond KettleMEG Fukuoka Meeting October Based on Period Normalization Factor k: 2008 Run seen as Problematic k does not match trend Mustops (DC HV-stability) 2012 Run with best statistics of MEG I k

MEG I – To Dos! Peter-Raymond KettleMEG Fukuoka Meeting October Even though we have successfully finished data-taking for MEG I It is IMPORTANT to push through as soon as possible the analysis of 2012/2013 Data!!!! - before people get more & more involved in MEG 2 and more & more of the detector gets irreplaceably dismantled Points that still need to be checked: Full understanding of magnetic field/ alignment situation concerning the old problem Michel US/DS edge asymmetry (shift) – even if within uncertainty Relative alignment of detectors (calorimeter, target, chambers) Angular acceptance, especially around 90° (hole) Are there further improvements in the algorithms that can be made – should not be forgotten as this this could also be useful for MEG 2!!!

A Retrospective – useful also for MEG 2 Peter-Raymond KettleMEG Fukuoka Meeting October 20137

Some of the “Highs” & “Lows” Encountered! Peter-Raymond KettleMEG Fukuoka Meeting October MEG experienced - 2 Earthquakes during Beam Commissioning in 2004 & felt “strongly” in beam barrack! even though only Mag. 4.1 – epicentre village of Mönthal approx. 5Km from Brugg Swiss Epicentres closest recorded stations

Fire & Water Peter-Raymond KettleMEG Fukuoka Meeting October COBRA PS-Fire 2005 fire-brigade + police + ½ of PSI in area!!! Unfortunate coincidence of missing protection System & false trigger causing Energy dump of Normal Conducting COBRA Magnet to the over load resistor! 2 Cavern Electrical Fire – smell noticed by Gianluigi while Shift check 29/11/2008. Bad high-resistance connection at i/p to power distributor 125A 3 2x Overflow of Air-conditioning System Condense water –over-flowed platform & ran on top of COBRA Power Supplies “ON”!!¨ - Area check allowed us to Switch OFF quickly without causing damage 19/8/201 (Hot humid summer) -- installed large tray-system + overflow recipient system 4Quadrupole cooling-water hose broke – flooded front-part of PiE5 area – noticed during parasitic run – no damage

Human Error!!! Peter-Raymond KettleMEG Fukuoka Meeting October Muon Target Broken – through overtiredness (PRK) 8/7/2010 Muon Target snapped-off with C-W driven Insertion System Manual-override done!!!! Highlight!!! we could plan, execute an efficient replacement within only 7 days because of the efficient on-site experts (DC-group) 2Insertion System Window 20 μm EVAL-foil destroyed when CEX LH 2 -target inserted too far 1/9/2011 Again an efficient repair only took 1 Day

Many High’s Also… too many to list… Peter-Raymond KettleMEG Fukuoka Meeting October BGO Plot here assumes: constant stopping constant stopping factor for all Runs factor for all Runs CEX Mott Acc.Ser Acc. Acc. Acc. Trigger+DAQTrigger+DAQ Offline/AnalysisOffline/Analysis

What have we Learned? Peter-Raymond KettleMEG Fukuoka Meeting October Be PREPARED for the UNEXPECTED …. – MURPHY is right!!! “The Law of Conservation of Problems” DOES HOLD A GOOD “Precision” EXPERIMENT depends on: A Good Team that work well together – not self evident amongst an International Collaboration A Team that is able to discuss, compromise and be creative A clear set of Rules Frequent Discussions & being open to new ideas A excellent group of “experts” + infrastructure support groups at the Institutes & especially at the Host Lab. The means of performing extensive monitoring & calibration tasks Be PREPARED for the UNEXPECTED …. – MURPHY is right!!! “The Law of Conservation of Problems” DOES HOLD A GOOD “Precision” EXPERIMENT depends on: A Good Team that work well together – not self evident amongst an International Collaboration A Team that is able to discuss, compromise and be creative A clear set of Rules Frequent Discussions & being open to new ideas A excellent group of “experts” + infrastructure support groups at the Institutes & especially at the Host Lab. The means of performing extensive monitoring & calibration tasks MEG has managed this …. We should continue to improve things… READY for MEG 2