1. ECFA recommendations (September 2001:)
MUTAC ( jan 2003)(US)
The committee remains convinced that this experiment, which is absolutely required to
validate the concept of ionization cooling, and the R&D leading to it should be the
highest priority of the muon collaboration. Planning and design for the experiment have
advanced dramatically(…)
EMCOG: (6 feb 2003) (Europe)
(…)EMCOG was impressed by the quality of the experiment, which has been well studied,
is well organized and well structured. The issue of ionization cooling is critical and this
justifies the important effort that the experiment represents.
EMCOG recommends very strongly a timely realization of MICE.
MUTAC: Muon Technical Advisory Committee (Helen Edwards, et al) (US)
EMCOG: European Muon Coordination and Oversight Group (C. Wyss et al)

2. 2010

3. Recommendations december 2004 J. Feltesse
CERN should make every reasonable effort to deliver the approved p.o.t. to CNGS.
Future neutrino facilities offer great promise for fundamental discoveries. CERN should join the world effort in developing technologies for new facilities : Beta beams, Neutrino Factory…wherever they are sited.
Focus now on enabling CERN to do the best choice by 2010 on future physics programme.
Explore further synergies with EURISOL
december 2004 J. Feltesse

4. SUPERBEAM and NEUTRINO FACTORY DS
Edgecock
FP6 Design Study
SUPERBEAM and NEUTRINO FACTORY DS WP
Title
Responsible
Summary 1
Management
Edgecock
Proton Driver
Garoby
Insufficient manpower 2
Targetry
Bennett
R&D on targets to prove viability; engineering of target station 3
Collection
Campagne
Viability of horn 4
MICE
Blondel
R&D on critical components 5
FFAGs
Meot
R&D on SC dipoles 6
Machine
Haseroth
Cost and performance optimised Neutrino Factory Design 7
Physics and detectors
Mezzetto Strolin
Define parameters for accelerator & detector, inc. detector cost
Leading House = RAL ; minor CERN involvement

5. What did we achieve? from to Design Study
A European Integrated Infrastructure Initiative for Long Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Physics
What did we achieve?

6. X X Proposed structure Access to Networking Research Joint
Infrastructures TA
Networking
activities (NA)
Joint
research
activities
JRA
The 3 activities are mandatory for an I3
We were advised to submit a modest proposal
Between 5-7 M€ total.
The duration of projects should be 3 years.
The focus should be
BEAM AND EXPERIMENTS

7. NA1.
project
management OK

8. Joint Research Activities:
JRA1: target and collection systems
Lettry and Efthymiopoulos (CERN) proposed a nice set of activities
(Tests of solid and liquid targets, Horn PS, TTA2?)
collaboration with Polish group. (but: RAL, PSI?)
JRA2: Muon beam at RAL
Bradshaw (RAL) proposed a MICE based activity
(spectrometer solenoid, detectors, manpower, international collab.) OK

9. MUST CONTINUE and EXPAND
JRA3 Detector development for neutrino experiments Paolo Strolin
We have identified four main fields of research on detectors that can be developed and improved in the future.
1. Large area or high sensitivity economical photon detectors
2. Large volume liquid argon detector possibly in magnetic field
3. Large magnetic detectors
4. Emulsion detectors
Photo-detectors: proposal by Saclay (Mosca et al)
issue raised:
EU collaborators?
Inclusion of Photonis, a private company.
Magnetic detectors Ragazzi (Milano ex monolith) proposed to supervise design a 40kton mag detector.
Liquid Argon. Obviously. But deadline was too close
(A. Rubbia ETHZ)
Activity on emlsions or similar was not identified
MUST CONTINUE and EXPAND

10. group was identified but did not materialize.
JRA4: Tools for analysis of neutrino oscillation experiments.
group was identified but did not materialize.
Steve King Eligio Lisi,
Mezzetto, Donini, Rigolin, Hernandez, Gomez-Cadenas…
Migliozzi, Lindner

11. J. Wood’s call offers a clear first goal:
Next steps:
J. Wood’s call offers a clear first goal:
understand
-- required DesingStudy structures
is an associated I3 important? Is it CARE?
-- the needed JRA’s
-- preliminary studies
-- workshops or meetings to be organized
to gather the community.
-- can build on n3 as seeds
-- must build on BENE
to avoid unnecessary accumulation of meetings
-- need further seeds as n3 did not include
such items as
engineering, proton driver, acceleration, storage ring

12. start from where we are and move forward.
Possibilities
Wait until FP7: call 2006, 2007, ……..
Submit Neutrino Factory I3: call 4th November MEUR RA, DP: no chance for accelerator R&D proposal
Do what we can with individual WPs: - Neutrino detector I Non-scaling FFAG PoP NEST - Others?
but do not wait…
start from where we are and move forward.

13. Towards a Neutrino Factory scoping study
The original plan from EMCOG was that RAL would be the mother house of the
superbeam/NF DS. Ken Long received a letter from John wood to this effect.
17/01/2019

14. Background: Intellectual: Social: Political: Funding:
Feasibility studies:
US: I, II, Ia
EU: CERN ‘yellow report’
JP: Design report
Need inter-regional cooperation for ‘Study III’
Recognised at NuFct03
Social:
Essential to develop collaboration
Neutrino source for precision measurements of neutrino properties necessarily requires an international collaboration
Political:
European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructure:
Preparing roadmap for major research infrastructure
Funding:
FP7: Design Study call, expected autumn 2006
UK funding cycle

15. Scoping study: request for proposal

16. Scoping study: request for proposal
Empowering invitation:
Recognition of crucial nature of international partnership
Framework for discussion leading to:
Source(s) required for optimal precision exploration of neutrino properties
Consensus on options to be taken forward;
Identification of critical R&D items (h/w and concept development);
Definition of interfaces, performance goals etc. that can be studied in the next conceptual design phase;
Establishment of collaboration for the next phase.

17. Discussion: Just at the start; request only ‘a week old’
Take forward on afternoon of Thursday 17Mar05
Proposed timescale (working backwards):
Hand in proposal: 27May05
Full draft of proposal: 13May05
Meeting to discuss/agree content: May05 RAL
An exciting opportunity!
(And much work to do)

18. -- Engelen agreed with my strong feeling that CERN should be associated with the upcoming Neutrino Factory design study and that the 'TESLA' story (a European lab designing an accelerator without CERN support or even with CERN pushing a competing solution) should not repeat itself.
-- His opinion from discussing e.g. with the previous SPC chair (Joel Feltesse) is that Europe, countrary to Japan and apparently contrary to the US does not have a clear long term strategy for neutrino physics. Therefore he would like to suggest an independent committee to evaluate the situation and issue recommandations.
-- His suggestion would be that such a committee could be generated in the framework of the SPC. The aim could be to make a clear recommandation for a choice between future options, i.e. beta-beam/superbeam and neutrino factory options or to define an ordering between them.
(see discussion with Ken Peach tomorrow)