MICE Beamline Status m. apollonio 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127 1

Goals of the BeamLine (and possible actions for improvement) Generate PIONS (TGT) increase dip depth maximise production / capture in 1st triplet Transport PI to DK solenoid effects of varying DKSol current Capture Decay MUs (NB: backward == high purity) Transport MU to diffuser Match beam with (future) MICE lattice 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127 2

Q1 Q2 TOF2 Q3 D1 D2 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127 3

Q1-2-3 scan (past run) F x (Q1-Q2-Q3) -Q2 Q3 Q1 f1 f2 GVA1 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

Upstream Beam-line p! D1 ISIS synchrotron Q3 Q2 Q1 Target 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

Q1-Q2-Q3 scan – US beamline optimisation Q1-2-3 varied from nominal value Charged particles counted downstream of DKsolenoid Compared to MC Charged p-, m-, e- predict effect for single current changes verify in the next run DATA (Friday 13th 2009!) nominal config. data MC charged p- m- e- 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

Q1-Q2-Q3 scan – US beamline optimisation nominal config. data MC f1-only (MC) DATA p- m- e- 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

Q1-Q2-Q3 scan – US beamline optimisation nominal config. data MC f2-only (MC) DATA p- m- e- 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

Q1-Q2-Q3 scan – US beamline optimisation nominal config. data MC f3-only (MC) DATA p- m- e- 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

p Muon BeamLine: G4BL simulation – Q1.DS rad rad X’ vs X Y’ vs Y mm mm + ------------ CALC_EMI ------------- + eNT= 0.196 mm rad sx = 4.77 cm sY = 4.55 cm bT = 38397 mm aT = -7.105 RADIUS = 86.73 mm eNx= 0.2448 mm rad bx = 32146 mm ax= 9.68 ex= 0.074 mm rad eNy= 0.1568 mm rad by = 45755 mm ay= -32.9 ey= 0.047 mm rad P=444.71 MeV/c Z=Q1DS rad rad X’ vs X Y’ vs Y mm mm Y vs X 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127 10

m Muon BeamLine: G4BL simulation – TOF0 X’ vs X Y vs X dP/P<10% Y’ vs Y m + ------------ CALC_EMI ------------- + eTN= 2.91 mm rad sX = 4.51 cm sY = 7.02 cm bT = 2874.8618 mm aT = 0.129 RADIUS = 91.4828342 mm eNx= 3.49 mm rad bx= 1400.4 mm ax= 0.489 eX=1.47 mm rad eNy= 2.43 mm rad by= 4867.7 mm ay= -0.392 eY=1.02 mm rad P=250 MeV/c Z=TOF0 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127 11

m Muon BeamLine: G4BL simulation – TOF1 X’ vs X Y vs X dP/P<10% Y’ vs Y m + ------------ CALC_EMI ------------- + eTN= 2.47 (mm rad) sX = 5.9 (cm) sY = 4.37 (cm) bT = 2334 (mm) aT = 0.86 RADIUS = 75.9 (mm) eNx= 2.60 bx= 2872 mm ax= 1.598 eNy= 2.35 by= 1727 mm ay= 0.039 P=223 MeV/c Z=TOF1 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127 12

DKSol SCAN Rationale Change DK current  change optics downstream DKSol handle for tuning check data vs MC (our understanding of BL) ongoing task (unfinished …) 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

RUN 1125 DATA (DKSOl SCAN) DATA Run 1125 (PI+) Ptgt = 336.85 - PD2 = 330.9 MeV/c DKSol = 679A = 3.9T (+0.74T) protons? ~8300 entries ~12000 entries slab hits … 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

p  m beam line Rationale select p u.s. of DKSol with D1 select m d.s. of DKSol with D2 back scattered muons == purity 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

d.s. BL tuning: match to diffuser Q4 Q1 Dipole1 DK solenoid Q2 Q3 Dipole2 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Pp=444 MeV/c Pm=255 MeV/c Pm=214 MeV/c Pm=208 MeV/c fix D1 fix D2 p 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127 16

Optimising the BL – match to diffuser This is the (e,P) matrix http://mice.iit.edu/bl/MATRIX/index_mat.html 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

Pdiff = 148 215 256 Ppi (tgt) = 350 190 350 17 December 2009 190 350 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

Will it work? 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

PI- (444MeV/c) MU- (256 MeV/c) at D2 PI- should be here: 30.44 0.943269 0.943269 ~29. RUN 1174-1177 – PI- (444MeV/c) MU- (256 MeV/c) at D2 PI- should be here: 30.44 NB: DTmu(256)= DTmu(300) * beta300/beta256 = 28.55 * .943/.923 = 29.13 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

? PI- should be here: 30.44 RUN 1201 – PI- (336.8MeV/c) MU- (256 MeV/c) at D2 MU- should be the same as before … what is that? 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

Not happy with this “optimized” line Feel ONE Ppi for all cases not good Need a thought (== analysis of data) I rescale the central (444  256) case for 400.0  230 336.8  200 Select backward going muons 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

m Muon BeamLine: G4BL simulation – Diffuser + ------------ CALC_EMI ------------- + eN= 3.41 mm rad sX = 4.35 cm sY = 4.88 cm bT = 1250 mm aT = -0.0017 RADIUS = 65.3 mm ex= 3.76 mm rad bx= 1004 mm ax= 0.367 ey= 3.10 mm rad by= 1534 mm ay= -0.450 P=214 MeV/c Z=Diffuser 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127 23

Measuring (e,P) from DATA Rationale checking if an optics produces the foreseen (a,b) at diffuser measure e (and P) of the muon beam How? use TOF0 / 1 as (x,y) stations define muon sample track mu’s in the Q7-8-9 triplet infer x’, y’  (x,x’) (y,y’) Mark Rayner’s tools 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

a) Monitoring the Run 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

e.g. ... (7, 9, 10, … December) PI (444 MeV/c)  MU (258 MeV/c) before new calib 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

b) Select muons c) Compute phase space 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

RUN 1408 – P0=400 /PD2=230 selecting the muons 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

TOF 0 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

TOF 1 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

x RMS norm emittance = 4.5 mm y RMS norm emittance = 1.8 mm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- If muons... x RMS norm emittance = 4.5 mm y RMS norm emittance = 1.8 mm Transverse 4d RMS norm emittance = 2.8 mm 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

RUN 1386-1387 – P0=444 /PD2=256 selecting the muons 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

G4BL prediction 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

TOF 0 X’ vs X Y’ vs Y G4BL 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

TOF 1 X’ vs X Y’ vs Y G4BL 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

RUN 1409–1411 P0=336.8 /PD2=200 selecting the muons (very broad peak, I kept conservative) 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

------------------------------------------------------------------- If muons... x RMS norm emittance = 4.27 mm y RMS norm emittance = 1.77 mm Transverse 4d RMS norm emittance = 2.75 mm 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

Conclusions After 1 year we are back on DATA taking target is working DKSol is ON We have been collecting data Since September 2009 Calibrations Rate vs Target Dip Depth (AD) Q123 scan need to understand discrepancies DKSol scan analysis in progress (e,P) matrix measurements analysis just started, Mark’s algorithm needs to be tuned (e,P) optimsed optics do not look handsome  need to be understood and reviewed to some extent 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127

Plans Short term keep taking pi  mu cases to increase statistics) stick to (-) polarity to avoid rushing Medium Term (Shutdown) campaign of measurements of mag fields ? hysteresis checks (doc is not clear + measurements done at I<Imax) any other suggestion? Longer term (>next User’s Run) review optimisation of the (e,P) matrix back to (+) polarity and repeat (e,P) data taking 17 December 2009 MICE VC 127