TJR 10/30/031 MICE Beam rates Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology 10/30/03.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 MICE Beamline: Plans for initial commissioning. Kevin Tilley, 16 th November. - 75days until commissioning Target, detectors, particle production Upstream.
Advertisements

Progress in the construction of the MICE cooling channel and first measurements Adam Dobbs, EPS-HEP, 23 rd July 2011.
January 14, 2004 TJR - - UPDATED 1/25/04 1 MICE Beamline Analysis Using g4beamline Including Jan 25 Updates for Kevin’s JAN04 Beamline Design Tom Roberts.
1 Acceptance & Scraping Chris Rogers Analysis PC
PID Detector Size & Acceptance Chris Rogers Analysis PC
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.
TJR Feb 10, 2005MICE Beamline Analysis -- TRD SEPT041 MICE Beamline Analysis – TRD SEPT04 Tom Roberts Muons, Inc. February 10, 2005.
MICE Beam-line and Detectors Status Report 16 th October 2009 Chris Booth The University of Sheffield.
M.apollonioMICE Analysis meeting 23/1/20071 M. Apollonio – University of Oxford Radius of diffuser and sizes for PID.
Particle ID in the MICE Beamline MICE Collaboration Meeting 30 March Paul Soler, Kenny Walaron University of Glasgow and Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.
TJR 12/12/2004G4BeamlineSlide 1 G4Beamline A “Swiss Army Knife” for Geant4 Tom Roberts Muons, Inc.
March 30, 2004 TJR1 MICE Upstream Particle Identification Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology March 30, 2004.
TJR Sept 22, 2004MICE Beamline Analysis -- SEPT041 MICE Beamline Analysis – SEPT04 Tom Roberts Muons, Inc. September 22, 2004.
July 5, 2007 TJRMICE B1+B2 Only1 MICE Running with B1 and B2 Only Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology.
1 Downstream scraping and detector sizes Rikard Sandström University of Geneva MICE collaboration meeting CERN.
June 13, Geant4 Simulations of the MICE Beamline Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology June13, 2003.
March 30, 2004 TJR1 MICE Target Source Calculations Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology March 30, 2004.
PID Detector Size & Acceptance Chris Rogers Analysis PC
11-FEB-2004 TJR1 MICE Beamline TOF Analysis Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Techology February 11, 2004.
1 G4MICE downstream distributions G4MICE plans Rikard Sandström Universite de Geneve MICE collaboration meeting 27/6-05.
K.Walaron Fermilab, Batavia, Chicago 12/6/ Simulation and performance of beamline K.Walaron T.J. Roberts.
Chris Rogers, MICE CM16 Wednesday Plenary Progress in Cooling Channel Simulation.
MICE: The International Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment Diagnostic Systems Tracker Cherenkov Detector Time of Flight Counters Calorimeter Terry Hart.
TJR August 2, 2004MICE Beamline Analysis1 MICE Beamline Analysis JUNE04 Including a proposal for a JUNE04A Configuration Tom Roberts Illinois Institute.
Downstream e-  identification 1. Questions raised by the Committee 2. Particle tracking in stray magnetic field 3. Cerenkov and calorimeter sizes 4. Preliminary.
TJR 11/03/2003Slide 1 g4beamline A “Swiss Army Knife” for Geant4 Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology.
TJR 9/24/031 Update: Geant4 Simulations of the MICE Beamline – Absolute Normalization Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology 9/24/03 (With thanks.
1 Progress report on Calorimeter design comparison simulations MICE detector phone conference Rikard Sandström.
TJR 7/30/031 Geant4 Simulations of the MICE Beamline Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology 7/30/03.
March 30, 2004 TJR1 MICE Beamline Performance with New Magnet Descriptions Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology March 30, 2004.
June 22, 2004 TJR1 MICE Beamline Rate Dependency on Pi+ Momentum, and Downstream PiD Distributions Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology June 22,
Jun 27, 2005S. Kahn -- Ckov1 Simulation 1 Ckov1 Simulation and Performance Steve Kahn June 27, 2005 MICE Collaboration PID Meeting.
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.
RF background simulations MICE collaboration meeting Fermilab Rikard Sandström.
Stephen KahnParticle ID Software Mice Collaboration Meeting Page 1 Particle ID Software Steve Kahn Brookhaven National Lab 27 March 2003.
1 Tracker Window & Diffuser Radius vs Scraping Aperture Chris Rogers Analysis PC 6th April 06.
May 12, 2004 TJR1 Effects of Downstream Iron Shield Position on MICE Good- Mu+ Rates Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology May 12, 2004.
May 12, 2004 TJR1 Effects of Upstream ParticleID Counters on MICE Good-Mu+ Rates Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology May 12, 2004.
Oct 15, 2003 Video Conference Energy Deposition Steve Kahn Page 1 Energy Deposition in MICE Absorbers and Coils Steve Kahn November 2, 2003.
1 Simulations of MICE March 2005 BENE Week Rikard Sandström Geneva University.
Emittance measurement: ID muons with time-of-flight Measure x,y and t at TOF0, TOF1 Use momentum-dependent transfer matrices iteratively to determine trace.
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.
1 Beamline DayTimePresenterTopic Thurs9:00C.BoothMICE Target Wed16:00K.TilleyRecent Beamline Design Work Wed16:30T.RobertsMICE Beamline Performance + Emittance.
Goals and Status of MICE The International Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment J.S. Graulich.
2002/7/02 College, London Muon Phase Rotation at PRISM FFAG Akira SATO Osaka University.
MICE Beam-line and Detectors Status Report 16 th October 2009 Chris Booth The University of Sheffield.
TJR 01/21/2003Slide 1 Simulations of the Study 2 Cooling Channel with Realistic Absorber Windows Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology.
Particle Production in the MICE Beamline IPAC10 Linda Coney, UC Riverside, Adam Dobbs, Imperial College London, Yordan Karadzhov, Sofia University The.
1 Beam and Target Issues Chris Booth 5 th May 2004.
RAL Muon Beam Line Properties. ISIS 70 MeV H- injection Ring accelerates up to 800 MeV in about 10 ms 50 Hz cycle - Dual Harmonic System ~ 2 x 1.5 MHz;
Paul drumm, mutac jan Precursor: - Resources since cm16. Beamline Review Response. Optics related work: the major threads: -Current (ε,p) status.
TJR August 2, 2004MICE Beamline Analysis1 MICE Beamline Analysis JUNE04 Including a proposal for a JUNE04A Configuration Update – August 03, 2004 (new.
Marco apollonio/J.CobbMICE coll. meeting 16- RAL - (10/10/2006) 1 Transmittance, scraping and maximum radii for MICE STEPVI M. Apollonio – University of.
Oct 15, 2003 Video Conference Energy Deposition Steve Kahn Page 1 Energy Deposition in MICE Absorbers and Coils Steve Kahn November 2, 2003.
G4Beamline Simulated Electron Distribution within the HPRF Cavity 2/15/20121.
March 18, 2008 TJRMICE Beamline Status1 MICE Beamline Status (March 18, 2008) Tom Roberts Muons, Inc. Illinois Institute of Technology.
Progress in the construction of the MICE cooling channel and first measurements Adam Dobbs, EPS-HEP, 23 rd July 2011.
Muons, Inc. TJR NuFact06 August 28, 2006G4BeamlineSlide 1 G4Beamline A “Swiss Army Knife” for Geant4 Tom Roberts Muons,
- MICE - The Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment Jean-Sebastien Graulich, Univ. Genève o Introduction: Aims And Concept o Design o Infrastructure: Hall,
Simulating the RFOFO Ring with Geant Amit Klier University of California, Riverside Muon Collaboration Meeting Riverside, January 2004.
Nufact02, London, July 1-6, 2002K.Hanke Muon Phase Rotation and Cooling: Simulation Work at CERN new 88 MHz front-end update on cooling experiment simulations.
Muons, Inc. Feb Yonehara-AAC AAC Meeting Design of the MANX experiment Katsuya Yonehara Fermilab APC February 4, 2009.
MICE. Outline Experimental methods and goals Beam line Diagnostics – In HEP parlance – the detectors Magnet system 2MICE Optics Review January 14, 2016.
1 1 Optics related work: the major threads: -Current (ε,p) status - G4BL/TTL Simulation comparisons - Beam steering/correction -Collimation d/stream &
MICE. Outline Experimental methods and goals Beam line Diagnostics – In HEP parlance – the detectors Magnet system 2MICE Optics Review January 14, 2016.
MICE The International Muon Ionisation Cooling Experiment
Luminosity Monitor Status
K. Tilley, ISIS, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, UK Introduction
Presentation transcript:

TJR 10/30/031 MICE Beam rates Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology 10/30/03

TJR 10/30/032 Outline

TJR 10/30/033 Idealizations Made Simulated using the Geant4 framework Normalization via both Geant4 and LAHET Beamline – Paul Drumm’s May 2003 Drawing –Quads have non-Maxwellian block fields (no fringe fields) –Bends have 2-D computed fringe fields, not 3-D, not measured –Solenoids have computed fields, not measured –Shielding of fringe fields by other magnets not included –For mainline analysis, no backgrounds (materials kill particles) Cooling Channel – Based on the MICE proposal –Pillbox RF cavities (with stepped Be windows) –Bellows windows for absorber and safety windows (slightly old design) –No backgrounds (materials kill particles, track μ + only) Detectors – Highly Idealized –Perfect Trackers Constructed of vacuum, 0 mm thick, placed at center of solenoid Measure {x,y,z,t,Px,Py,Pz} with the resolution of a float –No Cherenkov, TOF0, TOF2, or calorimeter (μ + selected by fiat)

TJR 10/30/034 MICE Beamline Layout Red line:Proton beam Green:Quad, D Blue:Quad, F Yellow:Bend Red:Decay Solenoid Light Blue:Diffuser1 (Proton beam bending not shown) (Proton beam shown starts at target)

TJR 10/30/035 MICE Cooling Channel Layout White:Diffuser1, TOF0,TOF1, TOF2 Yellow:Solenoids Red:RF Cavities Green:Absorbers

TJR 10/30/036 Task Flow of Rate Normalization Tune Beamline 10M Protons on Target LAHET 5M Protons on Target Geant4 (LHEP_BIC) Determine π + Acceptance (Pπ and Aperture) Select π + Cut on Pπ Weight into Aperture Select π + Cut on Pπ Weight into Aperture Generate 98M π + into Acceptance Track through Beamline and Cooling Channel Count Good μ + Compute Rate Using Beam Assumptions for p on Target Compute Rate Using Beam Assumptions for p on Target

TJR 10/30/037 Tune Beamline Tune B1 (central field, position) so 300 MeV/c π + go down the centerline Tune B2 (central field, position) so 200 MeV/c μ + go down the centerline Use Minuit to vary Q1,Q2,Q3 gradients to maximize μ + (Diffuser1) for a fixed set of π + from target Decay Solenoid held fixed at 3.0T

TJR 10/30/038 Particle Economics Generate 98,000,000 π + into beamline acceptance, track through beamline and MICE cooling channel with no LH 2 or RF –876,626 μ + at Diffuser1 –690,593 π + at Diffuser1 –10,559 good μ + (μ + at both Diffuser1 and TOF2) Geant4 Target Simulation: Generate 5M p into target –1.60 π + into beamline acceptance LAHET Target Simulation: Generate 10M p into target –4.53 π + into beamline acceptance ~30% discrepancy between LAHET and Geant4 normalizations; good agreement in Pπ distribution at 25 degrees For Singles Rates (only), generate 800,000,000 protons into target, get 2 μ + out.

TJR 10/30/039 Targeting Assumptions Target is 10mm long, 10mm high, and 1mm wide; Titanium Target “dips” 2mm vertically into the ISIS beam At our target, the ISIS beam has the area of a circle with radius 37.5mm At the edge, the ISIS beam has a density that is 0.1 times the average density (scraping makes it non-Gaussian) We have good target and good RF for 1ms per second The ISIS beam has 2.5·10 13 protons/bunch with a bunch rate of 1.5 MHz

TJR 10/30/0310 MICE Good μ + Rates LAHET Normalization: 83 Good μ + per second Geant4 Normalization: 59 Good μ + per second These particles occur during the 1 ms/second we have both good target and good RF. Further cuts on RF timing will be required. A “good μ + ” is a μ + at both Diffuser1 and TOF2 (i.e. π + and μ + decays after Diffuser1 are omitted).

TJR 10/30/0311 Effects of Diffusers on Good μ + Rates Diffuser1 Thickness (mm) Diffuser2 Thickness (mm) Highlighted cell is the MICE proposal

TJR 10/30/0312 Target Heating Average E loss per proton = 6.4 MeV Protons intersecting target per second = 1.7·10 12 Target motion factor: 10 (accounts for beam intercepted by target while moving into position) Beam halo and other backgrounds ignored Predicted heating: 17.4 Watts

TJR 10/30/0313 Singles Rates – Q1 Upstream Rate during the 1 ms/second of Good Target.

TJR 10/30/0314 Singles Rates – Q3 Downstream Rate during the 1 ms/second of Good Target.

TJR 10/30/0315 Singles Rates – Decay Solenoid Upstream Rate during the 1 ms/second of Good Target.

TJR 10/30/0316 Singles Rates – Decay Solenoid Downstream Rate during the 1 ms/second of Good Target.

TJR 10/30/0317 Singles Rates – Diffuser1 Rate during the 1 ms/second of Good Target. Low Statistics – only 2 mu+ and 2 pi+.