More beam (muons) from the AGS AGS RHIC Users Group Meeting EDM Workshop Brookhaven National Laboratory 7 June 2006 Phil Pile

Outline AGS Issues V1 Beam Line – present limitations V1 Beam Line – possible improvements To Do More beam from the AGS

The experts BNL Hugh Brown – V1  /  Beam Line Design University of Illinois Peter Kammel Paul Debevec Sara Knaack They began studies over two years ago on how to improve Hugh Brown’s V1 beam line design.

g-2 short history E821 (as run) Year Weeks HoursIntegrated Protons Remarks pulse-on-demand pulse-on-demand x st physics run pulse-on-demand x pulse-on-demand x x x TOTALS x E969 (my estimate) Commissioning x weeks with RHIC on AGS Total integrated protons (SEB+FEB), = 6.5 x 10 20

PROTON BEAMFY96 FY97 FY98/99FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 SEB SEBFEB (g-2)SEBFEB (g-2)FEB (g-2)FEB (g-2) SEB Beam Energy24 GeV24 GeV24 GeV24 GeV24 GeV24 GeV 24 GeV* 22 GeV* Peak Beam Intensity62 x ppp62 x ppp46 x ppp72 x ppp58 x ppp61 x ppp 63 x ppp 76 x ppp Total protons accelerated0.9 x x x x x x x x Spill Length/Cycle Time1.6 sec/3.6 sec1.6 sec/3.6 sec2.8 sec/5.1 sec2.4 sec/5.4 sec -> Duty Cycle44%44%55% 44% Spill Structure Modulation (peak-average) /average20%20%20%20% Average Availability /Best Week76% / 92%71% / 79%58 % / 67 %71% / 88%55 % / 83 %74 % / 87 %83 % / 88 %85 % / 97 % HEAVY ION BEAMAuAuFe (NASA)AuFe (NASA)Fe (NASA)Fe (NASA)Fe (NASA) Beam Energy /nucleon11 / 4 / 2 GeV11 / 8 / 6 GeV1.0 / 0.6 GeV11 GeV1.0 / 0.6 GeV1.0 GeV1.0 GeV1.0 GeV Peak Beam Intensity4 x 10 8 Au/p 17 x 10 8 Au/p 20 x 10 8 Fe/p 9 x 10 8 Au/bunch36 x 10 8 Fe/p17 x 10 8 Fe/p80 x 10 8 Fe/p49 x 10 8 Fe/p Spill Length/Cycle Time1.4 sec/3.6 sec1.5 sec/4.0 sec1.2 sec/3.0 sec0.9 sec/3.3 sec0.9 sec/3.3 sec0.9 sec/3.3 sec -> Duty Cycle39%38%40 %27%27%27% Spill Structure Modulation (peak-average) /average<20%<20%<20%<20%<20%<20% Average Availability80%82 %96 %81 %90 %90 %97 %84 % * Westinghouse Motor Generator AGS performance T. Roser

12:00 o’clock 2:00 o’clock 4:00 o’clock 6:00 o’clock 8:00 o’clock PHOBOS 10:00 o’clock BRAHMS STAR (p) PHENIX (p) RHIC AGS LINAC BOOSTER TANDEMS NSRL (NASA)  g-2 U-line Pol. Proton Source High Intensity Source Slow extraction Fast extraction AGS: Intensity: 7  protons/pulse Injector to RHIC: < 1 hour about every 4 hours AGS/RHIC Accelerator Complex p gas jet target

AGS Complex Booster AGS V1  /  Beam Line  g-2 experiment to RHIC Linac TTB C-AD Admin NSRL AGS and Booster need a re-hab before returning to high intensity

3.094 GeV/c muon channel, 8 quads 3.15 GeV/c pion front end Inflector E821 beam line and muon storage ring

Beam Studies Summary March 16 ‘06 Condition NNP2 Fig of Merit for 1x for 2x for 4x for 4x pi+3% for 4x pi+5% back 1x back 2x back 4x back 4x qs Forward: + 3% looks promising. Factor 2.4 over E821. Main uncertainties: model/reality difference in P  scaling (factor 2), pion flash prediction, phase space effect. Can largely be verified in beam test run. Investigate K1/K2 improvement. Backward: Factor 1.75 over E821 with effort. Gets hit twice by 2 nd order effects (intensity and phase space losses). Needs to overcome those to remain competitive. Main uncertainties: New injection beam line and 2 nd order effects. Higher cost and effort. Can only be partially verified in beam test run. differences Peter sightly different tunes fit of XX’ sigma (Dave) optimized injection mag in q tune forward -8% due to finite target (Peter Kammel Slide) What I’ll discuss today See for morehttp://

 decay channel (3 GeV/c  ’s) Add 30 new 4Q24’s New Inflector E969 beam line and muon storage ring IMPROVED E821 Beam Line New VQ12

So how do we get more muons? The basic approach - Reduce beta function in decay channel (add quads) and get more muons into storage ring with no increase in pions. Some Issues: Pion flash First order beam blow-up due to extended target 2 nd order beam blow-up Inflector/Ring admittance Muon Polarization

cm or cm/% x (cm) y (cm) dy/dp (cm/%) dx/dp (cm/%) meters The E821 beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam FIRST ORDER CALCULATION and target 0 cm d/s /pion/ ; P1 P2

cm or cm/% x (cm) y (cm) dy/dp (cm/%) dx/dp (cm/%) meters The E821 w/4X FODO beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam FIRST ORDER CALCULATION and target 0 cm d/s /pion/ ; P1 P2

cm or cm/% x (cm) y (cm) dy/dp (cm/%) dx/dp (cm/%) meters The E821 beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam SECOND ORDER CALCULATION and target 0 cm d/s /pion/ ; P1 P2

cm or cm/% x (cm) y (cm) dy/dp (cm/%) dx/dp (cm/%) meters The E821 w/4X FODO beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam SECOND ORDER CALCULATION and target 0 cm d/s /pion/ ;

cm or cm/% x (cm) y (cm) dy/dp (cm/%) dx/dp (cm/%) meters The E821 beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam FIRST ORDER CALCULATION and target 9 cm d/s /pion/ ;

cm or cm/% x (cm) y (cm) dy/dp (cm/%) dx/dp (cm/%) meters The E821 w/4X FODO beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam FIRST ORDER CALCULATION and target 9 cm d/s /pion/ ;

cm or cm/% x (cm) y (cm) dy/dp (cm/%) dx/dp (cm/%) meters The E821 beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam SECOND ORDER CALCULATION and target 9 cm d/s /pion/ ;

cm or cm/% x (cm) y (cm) dy/dp (cm/%) dx/dp (cm/%) meters The E821 w/4X FODO beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam SECOND ORDER CALCULATION and target 9 cm d/s /pion/ ;

cm or cm/% x (cm) y (cm) dy/dp (cm/%) dx/dp (cm/%) meters The E821 beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam SECOND ORDER CALCULATION and target 9 cm u/s /pion/ ;

cm or cm/% x (cm) y (cm) dy/dp (cm/%) dx/dp (cm/%) meters The E821 w/4X FODO beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam SECOND ORDER CALCULATION and target 9 cm u/s /pion/ ;

The target length issue

Muon momentum (GeV/c) Muon Polarization Pion Flash and polarization issues – study with 3.15 GeV/c ± 90% pion momentum 4X FODO to u/s of P2 (end of decay channel) Primodial muons GeV/c ± 0.25%

The Pion Flash Issue 4X 1X Note rapid loss vs gradual loss of muons

3.094 GeV/c ± 0.25% The Pion Flash Issue

The pion flash issue together with polarization loss and admittance issues GeV/c ± 0.25%

The pion flash issue together with polarization loss and admittance issues E821 muon momentum range Takes into account admittance and polarization

Comparing Present (1X) to Proposed (4X) Beam Line includes muon admittance and p 2 factor for polarization Bottom Line - EXPECTED IMPROVEMENT E821 muon momentum range Better  rejection more  stored

Summary of Beam Line Changes V Primary Transport New VQ12 – to reduce primary beam losses V1 pion production target Unchanged V1  /  Beam Line Reposition V1P1 upstream (more  ’s collected) Add 30 New 4Q24 magnets in  decay channel Add earth shielding over V1 transport tunnel Improve shielding between beam line and storage ring New Inflector (open end)

VQ12 replaced with 4” dia quad g-2  /  beam line front end

No Changes

Move V1P1 upstream (longer decay channel) Shielding mods

Add 30 quads to pion decay channel, collect more muons

Improve shielding New open-end inflector Less multiple scattering, more muons stored

To Do List Complete simulations to include transport to K3K4 and inflector for both the present beam line and the proposed beam line, done but with little thought and is not optimized. –Include 19 cm length in simulation Can we reconcile differences between beam line measurements and simulations Are 30 quads (4X) in decay channel optimum? There’s room for more but pole tip field becomes a problem…

Supplementary Information

What is needed to baseline the costs (not included in construction cost estimate) 1.0 g-2 Ring/Building maintenance –1 man month to engineer an air conditioning system for bldg V/V1 Beam Lines –1 man-months engineering –1 man-months physicist 1.2 Inflector (see Meng talk) –A quote from the Furukawa Company for superconductor 1.3 E Quads –Nothing new, defendable 1.8 Kicker –Nothing new, defendable 1.11 Cryogenics (to determine scope) –2 man-months engineering –1 man-month tech 1.12 Vacuum System –1 man-month engineering 1.14 Booster/AGS –0.5 man month engineering –0.5 man month physicist ES&H – review operation within present guidelines –1 man-month physicist –1 man month engineer Preparation of Cost Books, Resource Loaded Schedules, CD0-1 documents etc –4 man-months engineering –4 man--months physicist Summary –11 man-month engineering – 7 man-month physicist – 1 man-month tech Required Budget ~ $360K Calendar Time Required ~ 6-8 months

Muon g-2 Experiment Construction, Cost Summary Experiment Construction, Direct CostsM$ Contingency –G-2 Ring and building$ % –V/V1 Beam Line modifications$ % –Inflector (open ends)$ % –E-Quad rebuild$ % –Additional muon Kicker$ % –Cryogenic plant rehab$ % –Ring Vacuum System $ % –Equipment Testing$ % –Project Office$ % Sub-Total, direct costs$ 6.2 Indirects (reduced)$ 2.2 Contingency (44%)$ 3.7 Sub-Total, with indirects$ 12.1 University (Detectors/DAQ)$ 1.4 Total (DOE)$ 13.6 University (Detectors/DAQ - NSF)$ 1.0 FY 2006 $’s

AGS/Booster Restoration to High Intensity, Cost Summary AGS/Booster, Direct CostsM$ Contingency –ES&H (CAPS)$ % –Electrical Modifications$ % –Mechanical Modifications$ % –RF System Modifications$ % –Instrumentation$ % –Project Support$ % –Controls $ % Sub-Total, direct costs$ 7.5 Indirects (reduced)$ 1.9 Contingency (24%)$ 2.3 Total$ 11.7 FY 2006 $’s

g-2 Experiment Operations, Cost Summary Base Plan (0.25 ppm experiment) Year Wks w/RHICWks Stand-Alone Physics Wks Cost (M$) 1 st $ nd $ 7.8 Total $ 13.6 Additional week year of running with RHIC adds ~$6-7M FY 2006 $’s

g-2 Experiment Operations, Cost Summary DOE Costs Baseline Costs (C-AD pre-construction) $ 0.4 Experiment Construction (mostly C-AD)$ 12.1 Universities$ 1.4 AGS/Booster restoration to high intensity$ 11.7 Operations$ 13.6 Total$ 39.2 NSF Costs Universities$ 1.0 FY 2006 $’s

g-2 Experiment Operations Plan

g-2 Experiment Operations (0.5 ppm) FY 2006 $’s

g-2 Experiment Operations (0.25 ppm) FY 2006 $’s

g-2 Experiment Operations (0.2 ppm) FY 2006 $’s

LEP Quads