M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab1 M. Bonesini INFN Milano MICE TOFes construction & planning

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab2 Outline  Present design of TOF0 (TP endorsed)  BTF testbeam plans  TOF1 design  TOF2 design

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab3 Rates (Singles per ms) target insertion reduced to get 600 good mu+/sec (AUG05) LAHETGeant4MARSAverage TOF TOF Tracker Tracker TOF Good μ + (Ev/sec) pi beam from T. Roberts

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab4 1pi beamline design from D. Adams

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab5 Present design of TOF0 From D. Adams & T. Roberts simulations a 40 x 40 cm 2 active area and a 4 cm segmentation seems a good choice BC-420 scintillator bars 40 x 4 x 2.5 cm 3 ordered at Bicron (emission peak ~390 nm) simple fish-tail lighguides UVT plexi

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab6 A detailed description of TOF0 and related tests (PMT, cosmics …) is in preparation and will be delivered soon as MICE note

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab7 TOF0 prototype mechanics: Some barrettes (BC x 4 x2.5 cm 3 ) ready with fish-tail lightguides + PMTs (R4998) Additional barrettes with different scintillators (BC408/BC404/BC420/EJ230) and size (6cm witdth) ready electronics + DAQ : QADC + TDC (V792 + V1290) in hands; no Nino-chip DAQ (ftom JS) in hands

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab8 TOF frond-end electronics 3 choices, in order of difficulty: 1. CF discriminator + TDC only 2. Splitter + L.E. discriminator/TDC + QADC 3. ALICE Nino chip (integrator+ fast discriminator) + TDC

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab9 Discriminator choice Choice between: 1. CF discrimininator : no need of time-walk correction no QDC line/splitter needed, but  t is usually worse 2. L.E. discriminator:  t is usually better, but a QDC is needed 3. ALICE NINO chip: it includes a discriminator + an integrator to make possible TOT correction (slightly equivalent to p.h. correction). According to ALICE coll. solution 3 is equivalent to 2 Problem: while solutions 1-2 are commercial ones (CAEN or …); solution 3 needs some R&D

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab10 The BTF testbeam Testbeam July allocated at BTF We will have our DAQ based on CAEN V2718 (not use default BTF one, Labview based) We can test TOF resolutions, not rate effects (for this we can do only lab tests with our laser system) Energy range MeV e - /e + Max rep rate50 Hz Pulse duration 10 ns Current/pulse particles

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab11 What we plan to test in BTF, as regards TOF FEE MICE baseline-1 solution: V1290 TDC + CF discriminator CAEN V812B (Mb-1) MICE baseline-2 solution: Harp splitter + V1290 TDC + QADC + L.E. discriminator. For the time being QADC will be V792, waiting for new CAEN QADC based on V1724, to be delivered end of this year (Mb-2)

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab12 Some considerations for TOFFE MICE baseline-1 solution is easy and if works minimize manpower (our more delicate issue) we can try to adopt Mb-1 to proceed later to Mb-2 (still reduce manpower) Real delicate point: choice of CF discriminator

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab13 What is needed for TOF at BTF TOF0 prototypes equipped with R4998 PMTS – ready additional counters to be tested ( diff scintillator, lengths, fine mesh PMTs): useful for TOF1/2 – ready Finger counters to define precisely beam impact point available from MEG tests - requested HV/signal cables, splitters, NIM discriminators, VME modules – to be checked, but available CAEN VME CF discriminators – to be requested (EP Pool ?) DAQ (JS) – ready, cloned in Milano monitoring (JS) – ready pre-test with cosmics to debug full size counters: in preparation in Milano

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab14 TOF testbeam targets: TOF0 with simple MCA Test time resolution at various positions with single particles TOF0 with full DAQ Test time resolution at various positions with single particles Test time resolution with particle pile-up Make comparisons with TDC+CF discriminators and TDC+QADC measurements TOF1/2 with full DAQ Test time resolution with cheaper UPS-95F counters Test time resolution with bigger detectors Test time resolution with fine-mesh 1”,1.5” PMTs (if possible)

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab15 Some side considerations for TOF1/TOF2 up to know only fine-mesh PMT solution considered But problem: their cost has increased as respect to previous quotations by 50% !!!! (increase of cost of fine-mesh grids, according to Hamamatsu), R4998 are better (smaller TTS, rate capability, …) and in a short time Hamamatsu may discontinue their production studies by J. Cobb+ H. Witte to see if we can change B// (not shieldable in conventional PMTs) into B_|_ (shieldable)

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab16 TOF 2 PMT geometry Most of the following is just paste&cut from John&Holger notes/studies  credits&questions to them

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab17 B field components at TOF2: no iron shield From John&Holger 2-D computations

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab18 B field at TOF2: one 100 mm iron shield

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab19 B field is ~ 200 G //; ~ 0.1 T _|_

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab20 B field at TOF2 with 2 iron shields sandwiching TOF2

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab21 B// ~ 40 Gauss, B_|_ ~ 0.13 T Problem: individual PMTs must be shielded with soft iron, but this implies a 3-D calculation to be completely sure Valuable option to be finalized (conventional PMTs cheaper + better performances)

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab22 TOF1 baseline 48 x 48 cm 2 active area (still OK?) if 2 nd global shielding adopted: conventional PMTs request funds for 2007 (+ TOF0 electronics)

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab23 TOF2 baseline 60 x 60 cm 2 active area (it was 48 x 48 cm 2 active area, as based on previous MC simulations …) if 2 nd global shielding adopted: conventional PMTs request funding for 2008

M. Bonesini - 08/06/06 Fermilab24 Conclusions up to now we are in schedule good news: Pavia (G. Cecchet et al.) will join us on TOF bad news: still pending full INFN approval (this gives problems for thesis, workshops use …) realistic requests: 2007 TOF0 electronics+ TOF1 ; 2008 TOF2