A neo-conventional neutrino beam Moving beyond Simon van der Meer’s paradigm

Alan Bross | CERN muon meeting November 18, 2015 Pion Instrumented Line (PIL) X X X Eliminate  storage capability 2 X 1300 km Residual high energy protons bend down 2.9° bend down 2.9° π decay in the straight Target Station nuSTORM Ao Liu

Alan Bross | CERN muon meeting November 18, 2015  flux: nuSTORM pion line vs. dedicated pion line Current LBNF baseline 3 FODO extension of nuSTORM  beamline: P 0 =7 GeV/c with larger acceptance nuPIL FODO nuSTORM

Alan Bross | CERN muon meeting November 18, 2015 Why is this interesting? Beam systematics of concern for conventional horn- focused beam line –Secondary particle production Particle types, flux and energy distribution –Proton beam targeting stability –Target degradation/change –Horn stability –+++? All of these become unimportant since the pion flux is measured by the beam line instrumentation (flux, momentum distribution, emittance) –R&D issue here – never been done In addition – no (zero) background in anti- beam & vice versa –Sign selection 4

Alan Bross | CERN muon meeting November 18, 2015  CP coverage 5 GLoBES analysis Pilar Colomar

Alan Bross | CERN muon meeting November 18, 2015 Increasing the flux 6 Jean-Baptist Lagrange Imperial College London Momentum acceptance ~ ± 50% Target + Horn

Alan Bross | CERN muon meeting November 18, 2015 flux from FFAG 7 GLoBES analysis to be done VERY Preliminary

Alan Bross | CERN muon meeting November 18, 2015 Integrated neutrino Target station 8

Alan Bross | CERN muon meeting November 18, 2015 Conclusion A pion beam line presents an interesting possibility for producing a  beam for long-baseline oscillation experiments And, with an appropriate target station design, sets the stage for the next step(s) 9

Alan Bross | CERN muon meeting November 18, 2015 Practical considerations Case in point: LBNF Primary proton beam line, target station and proton dump all at grade –No hill Decay straight is no longer a “decay pipe”, but a beam line –Radiation safety considerations VERY different –High-power/high-energy beam does not go underground –~6-7 m concrete annulus is not required Will have to be vetted by Rad Safety –Has significant cost impact 10