1. Detector WG Summary 5 th Plenary meeting of the IDS-NF A. Bross

2. Detector Baseline  MIND is still the baseline  Better E threshold turn-on  Still room for improvement based on MINOS data  100 kT  Required R&D is well defined  Scintillator  Existing Technology OK  Photodetector  SiPM  Magnet  Inputs for costing well understood 2 Alan Bross IDS-NF Plenary Meeting - FNAL April 10, 2010

3. Steel & Magnets  Steel  No Issues – Just get out your Wallet!!!!  MINOS Steel Costs: $4.4M  Multiplier for MIND: 20 X 2 X 1.5 (size, cost/lb increase, escalation) = 60: 4.4M  $260M!!!  Magnet  Add Coils  Because plates are 4X larger than MINOS, getting acceptable uniformity may require driving much more of the plate into saturation – very large A-turns (MINOS: 15kA-turns)  Coil power density - Affects power put into detector  Efficiency of the MINOS design - Large coil increase gives smaller gain in field  Larger coil means that more particles are lost in the coil 3 Alan Bross IDS-NF Plenary Meeting - FNAL April 10, 2010

4. Field Uniformity 4 Alan Bross IDS-NF Plenary Meeting - FNAL April 10, 2010 MINOS FAR 15kA-turn

5. Solution?  Back to the Future  Superconducting Transmission Line: 5 Alan Bross IDS-NF Plenary Meeting - FNAL April 10, 2010 100 kA-Turn $500/m ($100k) 0.1W/m (20W)

6. Alternate Detectors  TASD  Totally Active Scintillator Detector  LAr 6 Alan Bross IDS-NF Plenary Meeting - FNAL April 10, 2010

7. Status of TASD (Overview) 7 M. Ellis - IDS Meeting - 8th April 2010 3 cm 1.5 cm 15 m 150 m

8. Electron Events 8 M. Ellis - IDS Meeting - 8th April 2010 400 MeV/c e - 3 GeV/c e +

9. TASD R&D  Magnet (Sasha Zlobin)  Scintillator (Anna Pla)  Photodetector (Paul Rubinov)  All of these also applicable to MIND 9 Alan Bross IDS-NF Plenary Meeting - FNAL April 10, 2010

10. Magnetic Cavern Design Concept Design features –10 large solenoids –Solenoid length 15 m –Inner diameter 15 m –Nominal design field ~0.5 T –I-m thick iron walls –Good field uniformity STL is placed inside the external support structure (cylindrical strongback) Solenoid strongbackThermal shield STL cable Invar pipe with SC strands, stabilizer and LHe

11. VLHC Test facility in MS-6 Some elements of cryogenic and power systems for this experiment exist at Fermilab They are located in MS-6 and include: –cryogenic distribution box –100-kA copper power leads –100-kA low-voltage power supply –Cryogenic and PS control system –Quench detection system Comments: Some equipment will need some modifications. The facility may need larger space since it is not clear if the space available in MS-6 allows placing a horizontal ring 15-m in diameter with the appropriate support system and iron shields.

12. Resources The work would include an engineering study to optimize the SCTL for this application, force and stress analyses and then design, construction and test of the prototype. The planned duration of the work is 3-4 years. The estimated resources ~14 FTE including: –physicist (system design integration and project management) –mechanical engineering and analysis –electrical engineering and system operation –cryogenic engineering and system operation –designer/drafter –technicians The estimated M&S cost of the project is ~2 M$.

13. Conclusions Large solenoid concept based on Superconducting Transmission Line (STL) presents significant technical and cost advantages with respect to large conventional superconducting solenoids Conceptual design studies are going on at TD with low rate due to limited resources –Present focus on STL optimization –Preparation to prototype phase STL modeling and integrated magnet system engineering design need to be planned. Resources! Resources! Resources!

14. 14 Early extrusion efforts showed the cost at roughly: –50% materials, 50% processing Current materials cost for a large detector (20 kT): –~ $3 / kg for polystyrene, dopants, reflective coating Dow PS, PPO, POPOP A total of $6 / kg seems possible Processing costs need to decrease: –High extrusion rates, multiple strands, 3 shifts a day, 6 days a week, continuous extrusion (minimize handling) –Minimize QC efforts EXTRUDED SCINTILLATOR: COSTS

15. 15 FUTURE R&D AT THE FNAL/NICADD FACILITY SMALL LAB-SIZE TWIN-SCREW EXTRUDER IN LAB 5: EXTRUDER AND COOLING TANK ARE AT 90º FIBER FEEDER AT THE BACK OF THE DIE

16. 16 FUTURE R&D AT THE FNAL/NICADD FACILITY SMALL LAB-SIZE TWIN-SCREW EXTRUDER IN LAB 5: ALUMINUM DIE (5 cm CUBE, SLANTED FRONT) KURARAY FIBER FED FROM THE TOP – NOT IDEAL

17. 1x1mm 2x2mm 3x3mm (3600 cells) June 13 th, 2007, Perugia INFN/IRST C. Piemonte G. Pauletta INFN/Udine June 13 th, 2007, Perugia Circular Array 1.2mm dia. ~ 650 pixels 40 x 40  2 SiPM from IRST SiPM (MPPC) from HPK

18. Old MINOS result 9 Apr '10Rubinov, IDS-NF18 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE, VOL. 49, NO. 3, JUNE 2002 Please note the scale here This was done with cosmic ray muons.

19. We have a more recent result- but with SiPMs Top strip r.o. The FAR end 7m from beam Pedestal + dark counts 2 4 6 Runs 5045 and 5046 2/20/2010 The NEAR end ~10cm from beam 4 2 6 5 9 12 16

20. Conclusion  Rather use the time to sneak in a few more results.  You can come to your own conclusions. 9 Apr '10Rubinov, IDS-NF20

21. TASD Summary  TASD looks very promising for low energy situations, but the rate of progress on simulations has slowed since the report last year at NuFact.  Hopeful that the recent grant of money at Brunel for hardware work and the possibility of a student could help to reverse this trend.  As always, very happy to welcome new people who are interested in this detector.  Will Absolutely have to increase effort on TASD if it is to be represented as a credible option in the RDR  R&D Issues are Well defined  Magnet – needs resources 21 M. Ellis - IDS Meeting - 8th April 2010

22. IDS-NF April 8, 2010 22 LAr (US Perspective) Bruce Baller

23. IDS-NF April 8, 201023 20 kT Storage 20 kT LAr20

24. Main Challenges for Massive LAr TPCs LAr Purity in large industrial vessels Materials qualification  Materials Test Stand Purification techniques for non-evacuable vessels  LAPD Large scale low-noise, low-power readout (~500k channels) On-Wire (cold) electronics and signal multiplexing  LAr20 R&D Underground issues: safety  LAr20 No cryostat penetrations in the liquid Cost  LAr20 IDS-NF April 8, 201024

25. ArgoNeuT Hit Finding LArSOFT IDS-NF April 8, 201025

26. LAr Summary Integrated R&D Plan developed, reviewed & submitted to DOE Materials Test Stand – Water is the culprit LAPD will confirm this result this summer Cryogenic ASIC’s obviate many problems w LArTPC’s – Minimize cables, outgassing, design constraints ArgoNeuT analysis of neutrino data – World first Aggressive schedule to build LAr20 – Liquid argon technology risks well understood and manageable IDS-NF April 8, 201026

27. Summary - Detector Options  TASD  Still baseline for LENF  R&D Well defined & rather limited  Magnetic Volume  No Progress due to lack of resources  LAr  Aggressive R&D Program underway  Technical challenges well defined and all are being investigated  We will have to wait and see, but  “First LAr talk that left us with the impression that it might be possible (multi-kT detectors)” 27 Alan Bross IDS-NF Plenary Meeting - FNAL April 10, 2010

28.  Lots of discussion in Joint Detector – LBNE sessions  IDS-NF can gain much with collaboration with LBNE ND groups 28 Alan Bross IDS-NF Plenary Meeting - FNAL April 10, 2010 Near Detector(s)

29. Near Detector Requirements  Need high resolution (low-Z) target for accurate measurement of angles of muons for flux determination and resolution of hadronic final states for cross section measurements.  Need good identification and accurate momentum measurement of the muon – a magnetic field with muon identification.  Very good hadron energy determination for flux and cross section measurements.  Need excellent vertex resolution for charm production and  detection for indications of NSI. 29 Alan Bross IDS-NF Plenary Meeting - FNAL April 10, 2010

30. 30 5th Neutrino Factory International Design Study Meeting FNAL, 9 April 2010 Near Detector Aims o Currently there is no near detector baseline o At the Mumbai meeting we decided that the near detector would be part of the baseline but not what it looks like, nor how far away it should be from the decay ring o We have decided on some of the essential measurements that a Near Detector needs to do to reduce the neutrino oscillation systematics: –Measurement of neutrino flux and extrapolation to Far Detector –Measurement of charm (main background to oscillation signal) –Cross-section measurements: DIS, QEL, RES scattering o Other desirable measurements with Near Detector –Fundamental electroweak and QCD physics (ie PDFs) –Search for Non Standard Interactions (NSI) from taus

31. 31 5th Neutrino Factory International Design Study Meeting FNAL, 9 April 2010 Number Near Detectors o Might need more than one detector at each decay ring straight sections –Maybe no need for magnetic field, but is preferable o Two detectors allows one also to measure divergence of beam ~0.1/ , without Cherenkov monitor along decay straight

32. 32 5th Neutrino Factory International Design Study Meeting FNAL, 9 April 2010 Muon chambers EM calorimeter Hadronic Calorimeter o I have shown this possibility before: –Based on NOMAD experience –Also similar to T2K One possible design

33. 33 5th Neutrino Factory International Design Study Meeting FNAL, 9 April 2010 o Make design more similar to Far Detector: –Can have a high resolution Mini-TASD for leptonic measurement and a mini-MIND for flux and muon measurement –Vertex detector for charm measurement at the front. –Need to study options with detailed simulations Another possibility beam 3 m B=1 T ~20 mMini-TASD 95 t Mini-MIND 460 t VertexDetector

34. 34 Alan Bross IDS-NF Plenary Meeting - FNAL April 10, 2010

35. 35 Alan Bross IDS-NF Plenary Meeting - FNAL April 10, 2010

36. 36 Alan Bross IDS-NF Plenary Meeting - FNAL April 10, 2010

37. Conclusions – Far Detector  MIND  The Baseline is STILL the Baseline (although “baseline” may be not baseline, but something else)  Although 100kT  Detector performance will likely improve with additional work on simulation/reconstruction  R&D well defined and approachable  Reliable costing can be made  Final $$ may not be palatable  Options  TASD  LENF baseline  However, MIND E thresh performance keeps improving & possibly Super-MIND (1(ish) cm plates could do even more). 100kT then approachable  R&D well defined  But not funded for Magnetic Volume  LAr  International R&D effort underway  Concepts being pursued in the US accommodate magnetization (not clear for Glacier)  Technically looking more promising, but cost is still unknown 37 Alan Bross IDS-NF Plenary Meeting - FNAL April 10, 2010

38. Conclusions – Near Detector  Just starting – much work needs to be done  Performance criteria are understood to a large degree  What needs to be measured and with what precision  Many, many detector options  Collaboration with Super-beam (LBNE, etc) projects will be very beneficial 38 Alan Bross IDS-NF Plenary Meeting - FNAL April 10, 2010