Emittance definition and MICE staging U. Bravar Univ. of Oxford 1 Apr. 2004 Topics: a) Figure of merit for MICE b) Performance of MICE stages.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
PID Detector Size & Acceptance Chris Rogers Analysis PC
Advertisements

1 Progress report on Calorimeter design comparison simulations MICE detector phone conference Rikard Sandström.
FIGURE OF MERIT FOR MUON IONIZATION COOLING Ulisse Bravar University of Oxford 28 July 2004.
1 Angular Momentum from diffuser Beam picks up kinetic angular momentum (L kin ) when it sits in a field –Canonical angular momentum (L can ) is conserved.
Particle by Particle Emittance Measurement to High Precision Chris Rogers Imperial College/RAL 17th March 2005.
Cooling channel issues U. Bravar Univ. of Oxford 31-Mar-2004.
1 Emittance Calculation Progress and Plans Chris Rogers MICE CM 24 September 2005.
1 PID, emittance and cooling measurement Rikard Sandström University of Geneva MICE Analysis phone conference.
1 26 Nov 2010 SOLID ABSORBERS Solid absorbers will provide first cooling demonstration –This is important for a number of reasons! Can use only solids.
Changing the absorbers: how does it fit in the MICE experimental programme? Besides the requirement that the amount of multiple scattering material be.
1 Downstream PID update Rikard Sandström PID phone conference
Alain Blondel MICE: Constraints on the solenoids 2.Field Homogeneity: or ? this will be dictated by the detector requirements. TPG will be.
OPTICS UPDATE Ulisse Bravar University of Oxford 3 August 2004.
1 Downstream scraping and detector sizes Rikard Sandström University of Geneva MICE collaboration meeting CERN.
1 PID Detectors & Emittance Resolution Chris Rogers Rutherford Appleton Laboratory MICE CM17.
18 June 2004AFC meeting1 MICE  functions and so on Work in progress…. Observation by Ulisse Bravar at CERN meeting that beam not matched in baseline (Proposal.
1 G4MICE studies of PID transverse acceptance MICE video conference Rikard Sandström.
Downstream transversal sizes Rikard Sandström University of Geneva MICE detector meeting.
PID Detector Size & Acceptance Chris Rogers Analysis PC
M.apollonioCM17 -CERN- (22/2 - 25/2 2007)1 Single Particle Amplitude M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.
MICE analysis meeting - (6/4/2006) 1 Update on MICE – step III M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.
Chris Rogers, MICE CM16 Wednesday Plenary Progress in Cooling Channel Simulation.
Beam line characterization with the TOFs1 Demonstrating the emittance-momentum matrix Mark Rayner, CM26 California, 24 March Initial.
1 OPTICS OF STAGE III Ulisse Bravar University of Oxford 6 October 2004.
MICE CM - Fermilab, Chicago - (11/06/2006) 1 A (short) history of MICE – step III M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.
Simulated real beam into simulated MICE1 Mark Rayner CM26.
Emittance Calculation Chris Rogers, Imperial College/RAL Septemebr
Beamline-to-MICE Matching Ulisse Bravar University of Oxford 2 August 2004 MICE performance with ideal Gaussian beam JUNE04 beam from ISIS beamline (Kevin.
1. Optical matching in MICE Ulisse Bravar University of Oxford 2 June 2004 Constraints Software MICE proposal mismatch MICE Note 49 (September 2004, Bob.
30 June 2004MICE VC1 MICE  functions Since last VC report: –New Mike Green configurations for decreased spacing between focus and matching coils of 400mm,
1 Emittance Calculation Progress and Plans Chris Rogers Analysis PC 18 August 2005.
Mark Rayner, Analysis workshop 4 September ‘08: Use of TOFs for Beam measurement & RF phasing, slide 1 Use of TOFs for Beam measurement & RF phasing Analysis.
Overview of Experiment and Parameter Choices presented by Giles Barr.
04/01/2006MICE Analysis Meeting1 MICE phase III M. Apollonio, J. Cobb (Univ. of Oxford)
Chris Rogers, Analysis Parallel, MICE CM17 Progress in Cooling Channel Simulation.
1 Chris Rogers MICE Collaboration Meeting 11th Feb 2005 Tracking and Cooling performance of G4MICE.
M.apollonio/j.cobbMICE UK meeting- RAL - (9/1/2007) 1 Single Particle Amplitude M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.
Diffuser Studies Chris Rogers, IC/RAL MICE VC 09 March 2005.
Analysis of MICE Chris Rogers 1 Imperial College/RAL Thursday 28 October, With thanks to John Cobb.
Timothy Carlisle, Oxford CM 28. Step 3 Matching Step 3  Step 3 rematched for 830 mm spool piece  Calc. B(z) & BetaFn with the following:  Minimize.
Emittance measurement: ID muons with time-of-flight Measure x,y and t at TOF0, TOF1 Use momentum-dependent transfer matrices to map  path Assume straight.
MICE pencil beam raster scan simulation study Andreas Jansson.
Results from Step I of MICE D Adey 2013 International Workshop on Neutrino Factories, Super-beams and Beta- beams Working Group 3 – Accelerator Topics.
MICE input beam weighting Dr Chris Rogers Analysis PC 05/09/2007.
Harold G. Kirk Brookhaven National Laboratory Progress in Quad Ring Coolers Ring Cooler Workshop UCLA March 7-8, 2002.
S. Kahn 5 June 2003NuFact03 Tetra Cooling RingPage 1 Tetra Cooling Ring Steve Kahn For V. Balbekov, R. Fernow, S. Kahn, R. Raja, Z. Usubov.
MICE at STFC-RAL The International Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment -- Design, engineer and build a section of cooling channel capable of giving the.
Mark Rayner 14/8/08Analysis Meeting: Emittance measurement using the TOFs 1 Emittance measurement using the TOFs The question: can we use position measurements.
11 Nov 2008PC Analysis PC Schedule 2008 Tuesdays fortnightly 9 September  23 September  2 October  CM22  11 November  25 November 9 December.
Marco apollonio/J.CobbMICE coll. meeting 16- RAL - (10/10/2006) 1 Transmittance, scraping and maximum radii for MICE STEPVI M. Apollonio – University of.
1 Statistics David Forrest University of Glasgow May 5 th 2009.
PID Detector Requirements for Emittance Measurement Chris Rogers, MICE PID Review, Thursday Oct 12.
Timing measurements at the MICE experiment – 1 The analysis of timing measurements at the Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment Mark Rayner The University.
Progress in the construction of the MICE cooling channel and first measurements Adam Dobbs, EPS-HEP, 23 rd July 2011.
Simulating the RFOFO Ring with Geant Amit Klier University of California, Riverside Muon Collaboration Meeting Riverside, January 2004.
Mark Rayner – Analysis SessionCM25, 4 November Beam characterization by the TOFs Mark Rayner The University of Oxford MICE CM25.
1 OPTICS OF MICE STEP V.0 Ulisse Bravar University of New Hampshire 26 June 2005.
M. Ellis - MICE Collaboration Meeting - Wednesday 27th October Sci-Fi Tracker Performance Software Status –RF background simulation –Beam simulation.
MICE Step IV Lattice Design Based on Genetic Algorithm Optimizations Ao Liu on behalf of the MICE collaboration Fermilab Ao Liu on behalf of the MICE collaboration.
(one of the) Request from MPB
MICE S TEP IV P HYSICS ‘D ELIVERABLES ’ V. Blackmore MAP 2014 Spring Meeting 30 th May, /15 AKA “What will we learn from Step IV?”
S TATUS OF THE P HYSICS A NALYSIS V. Blackmore MICE Project Board 29 th April, /30.
CM Nov 2009 DOES MICE NEED STEP III ? Somewhat hard to understand MICE Schedule… –If the gods are (un)kind it’s possible that SS1, SS2 & FC1 are.
Marco apollonioAnalysis Meeting (9/12/2006)1 transmission vs amplitude with a finite size diffuser M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.
Step IV Physics Paper Readiness
MICE Step IV Lattice Design Based on Genetic Algorithm Optimizations
MICE at Step IV without SSD
Using MICE to verify simulation codes?
Effect of Reduced Focus Coil Current on Step IV and Step VI
Impact of Magnet Performance on the Physics Program of MICE
Presentation transcript:

Emittance definition and MICE staging U. Bravar Univ. of Oxford 1 Apr Topics: a) Figure of merit for MICE b) Performance of MICE stages

Figure of merit for MICE MICE is designed to measure something to We have yet to decide what… Current quantity: normalised transverse emittance   as calculated by ecalc9f.for (G. Penn, 2001) from the 4x4 covariance matrix 4 definitions of rms emittance (K. Floettmann, 2003): i) normalised emittance ii) trace space emittance iii) geometric emittance iv) normalised trace space emittance Past wisdom (prior to Abingdon meeting): normalised emittance   = sqrt ( ) is Liouville compliant

Rms emittance and cooling Rms emittance, four definitions (K. Floettmann, 2003): a) normalised emittance  n calculated from, b) beam emittance  beam =  n / c) trace space emittance  tr calculated from, d) normalised trace space emittance  n,tr =  tr MICE cooling measured by decrease in 4-D transv.  n :       in –   out   in where   is obtained from the 4 X 4 covariance matrix.

Emittance in MICE   from ecalc9f.for Full MICE (LH + RF) Empty MICE (no LH, RF) Emittance is not constant in empty channel Does Liouville’s theorem still apply? Implications for MICE?

Emittance conservation J. Gallardo (2004) showed that 6-D normalised emittance calculated by ecalc9f.for is not constant in drift! K. Floettmann’s paper (2003): 4-D trace space emittance   tr = sqrt { } stays constant in drift! What does this mean?

Solution Liouville’s theorem: df/dt = 0 Where: f(q j,p j ;t) = state function; p j = canonical conjugate momenta; t = independent variable. Calculate emittance at fixed t, not z! Use correct conjugate momenta: in drift: x, p x, not x, x’ in B-field x, p x +eA x /c Calculate 6-D emittance!   and  L are constant only if transverse and longitudinal motions are completely decoupled. This is not the case in MICE! ecalc9f.for calculates  ,  L,  6 at fixed z; variables are x, y, t, p x, p y, E. These emittances are not constant in drift or in an empty channel!

Simple example Drift space. Non-relativistic beam Initial spread:  p / p = 10%. Top: 6-D  n at fixed t. Bottom: 6-D  n at fixed z. This true in general; theoretical proof available; simulations in progress. Questions: a) can we find  n at fixed t? b) is it useful for MICE?

Emittance measurement We now have a quantity that is Liouville-compliant. Can we measure it to ? Beam rms:  x = 3.3 cm,  px = 20 MeV/c Tracker resolution:  x <<  x Relative error on  x  0.5 (  x /  x ) 2 Relative error on 6-D emittance  6  1.2 (  x /  x ) 2 = Therefore  x  0.03  x In other words, we need  x  0.01 cm,  px  0.5 MeV/c Current resolutions from SciFi:  x  0.05 cm,  px  2.5 MeV/c. Way too big!!! Plus, statistical error on  x = 1/sqrt (#  ) = 10 -3, so #  = 10 6 Things get better if we want to measure 4-D transverse emittance Worse if we want to measure cooling  10% Question: is this the right figure of merit for MICE? We may calculate rms emittance… but we can’t deal with more advanced stuff. THESE FIGURES ARE PRELIMINARY. WORK IN PROGRESS!!!

Alternative: event counting Procedure: a) count number of muons in 2-D, 4-D or 6-D phase-space ellipsoids; b) show that #(  + ) increases from the upstream tracker to the downstream tracker. Problems: a) need to determine  n first; b) particle ID prior to upstream spectrometer. Advantages: a) straightforward; b) this is the quantity that matters in a real cooling channel.

Alternative: muon counting i.e. measurement of the increase in phase space density MICE channel, ecalc9f.for, 4-D ellipsoid Initial   = 6000 mm mrad 10,000 events. Full MICE channel (LH & RF). Empty channel (no LH, no RF) & same beam. Empty channel (no LH, no RF) & different beam. Still, need to compute  6 prior to counting. Same old problem: quantity does not stay constant in empty channel!!!

Gaussian beam profiles Real beams are non-gaussian Gaussian input beams may become non-gaussian along the MICE channel (see e.g. study on magnet alignment tolerances) When calculating e from 4x4 matrix with 2 nd order moments, non- gaussian beams result in e increase. Can improve emittance computations and measurement of phase space volume. May not be possible to achieve However, cooling that results in twisted phase space volume is not very useful. May need new figure of merit, in addition to , something to measure Gaussian shape of the beam. e.g. use 3 rd order moments to measure skewness of beam

MICE stages

Questions Beam optics: can we use the same cooling channel solutions in all six stages? Can we do all the physics of MICE with stages IV or V?

Beam optics Software provided by Bob Palmer. Based on ICOOL. Tuning of coil currents assumes: a) ideal beam; b) long channel, 100 m; c) empty channel; d) constant momentum p z = 200 MeV/c. Note: potential problem with stay- clear area in match coil.

Actual MICE channel When running MICE stages IV, V and VI, things are different. Stage VI (full MICE) Stage V (2 LH + 1 RF) Stage IV (1 LH + 0 RF) Two problems: a)   is not minimum in the centre of LH absorbers; b)   is not flat in downstream spectrometer. Fine tuning of coil currents necessary! Work in progress.

  = 42 cm in the centre of LH We get maximum cooling when this is true! Cooling formula: equilibrium emittance  n,equilibrium =   May do some tuning of focus coil currents. Unlikely solutions: a) move LH; b) additional match coils.

Performance of stages IV, V and VI Stage VI (full MICE) Stage V (2 LH + 1 RF) Stage IV (1 LH + 0 RF) Input emittances:   in  3,000; 6,000; 9,000 & 12,000 mm mrad. Start with 10,000 muons. Count number of muons that are left as a function of z along the MICE channel. Note: z = 0 in the middle of the upstream spectrometer. ICOOL runs all the way to the middle of the down-stream spectrometer, to z = 4.10 m (Stage IV), 6.85 m (Stage V) & 9.60 m (Stage VI).

Cooling Stage VI (full MICE) Stage V (2 LH + 1 RF) Stage IV (1 LH + 0 RF) Input emittances:   in  3,000; 6,000; 9,000 & 12,000 mm mrad.  + beam,  200 MeV/c. Note: fluctuations due to tracker resolution are not included.

  in = 6,000 mm mrad Stage VI (full MICE) Stage V (2 LH + 1 RF) Stage IV (1 LH + 0 RF) Questions: why is   in >>   in ? Shouldn’t   in be  6,000 mm mrad in all cases?

Summary of results 1) At all z locations, only muon tracks that make it all the way to the downstream spectrometer are used to calculate  . 2) Transmission = number of muons that reach the middle of the downstream spectrometer, out of 10,000 initial. Muon decay is disabled. 3)   /   = (   upstream –   downstream ) /   upstream = cooling;   is measured in the centre of the upstream and downstream spectrometers.

Statistical errors Question: what are the errors in the table on the previous page? Answer: the figure shows     (y-axis) vs. transmission (x-axis) for Stage VI. i)Each point is a different ICOOL run with a different random beam. ii)Total of 20 input beams, each beam contains 10,000 events. iii)All beams are Gaussian,   in  6000 mm mrad. x-axis, actually shows #(  + ) lost in the MICE channel, i.e. Transmission = 10,000 – #(  + ). Standard full MICE. MICE channel with LH only, no Al and Be windows. In short:  10% Errors  0.5% statistic + 0.5% systematic.

MICE stage VI MICE stage IV can prove ionisation cooling, but cannot prove the feasibility of a long cooling channel, since it has no RF. MICE stage V can demonstrate the feasibility of a muon ionisation cooling channel. MICE stage VI: a) central absorber: much more representative of real channel: i) beam optics same as in long channel; ii) e.g. determine cooling at   = 42 cm. b) in addition to flip and no-flip modes, can run in semi-flip; c) represents one full flip element. d) ….. Does all this justify stage VI?

Beta functions – flip mode   = 42 cm   = 25 cm   = 17 cm   = 7 cm

Conclusions For the time being, use ecalc9f.for and   as the figure of merit for MICE. Measure  out, not , to absolute! Need to reach consensus on appropriate figure of merit. URGENT!!! Fine tuning of MICE channel optics is necessary. Need solutions for all stages of MICE, including stage I. Study additional channel configurations, no-flip & semi-flip, additional absorbers. Investigate all advantages of having stage VI.