1. PID activities 1. Summary of work/activities since last CM in Berkeley 2. PID parallel session in Frascati 3. Topics specific to each subdetector CKOV1 CKOV2 EmCal 4. Issues common to all PID systems TOF Gh. Grégoire MICE collaboration meeting CM12, Frascati 28 June 2005

2. Phone meetings Since the PID summary talk at Berkeley in 14-17 Feb. 2005, we held phone conferences about PID on March 1 March 31 April 13 May 2 May 11 May 25 June 15 Losses in the cooling channel CKOV1 TOF Losses in the end system vs beam emittance Implementation of CKOVs in G4MICE Tuning EmCal cuts CKOV2 photon collection Task milestone tables D&S updates + Milestone tables Design&Safety issues TRD update D&S status CKOV1 design ideas CKOV2 photon collection EmCal response CKOV2 electron efficiency CKOV1 design issues Emcal simulation 2

3. PID sessions in Frascati Gh. Grégoire CKOV1 TOF MuCal theory CKOV2 MuCal practice PID in G4MICE L. Cremaldi M. Bonesini GG R. Sandström L. Tortora S. Kahn 1. Parallel session on Sun 26 Jun 2. Plenary session on Mon 27 Jun EmCal summary A. Tonazzo TOFM. Bonesini 3 3. Parallel session on Mon 27 Jun pm (software)

4. Conclusions of CM 11 1. 2. 3. 4. 4

5. Followup from CM 11 This is rather well advanced Thanks to P. Drumm, the structure of the TRD chap. 8 has been divided into subsections to allow for easy modifications by the various groups. 1. PID updates of the TRD 2. Realistic drawings of the subdetectors Converging process underway although time is passing by and audit/construction deadlines seriously approach 3. Tools for the final design « Field maps, Geant4 particle files, full re-evaluation of the performances » All are either available or well underway although there are sometimes difficulties to reach the PID requirements of MICE 4. Requirements for DAQ + Controls Happy to see it progressing ! 5

6. TRD CKOV1 DAQ & controls

7. TOF Conclusions presented by Maurizio Bonesini design for TOF stations well understood only some points to be defined connected with choice of size of TOF1/TOF2 PMTs (1.5” vs 2”) and divider for TOF0 PMTs (booster vs active divider) define electronics chain (TDC for high incoming rate): probable choice CAEN V1290 define the high-demanding calibration system (mainly laser based) test a prototype asap at LNF BTF, together with EMCAL Including detailed cost estimates 6

8. Questions/comments raised about TOFs Possibility to reduce the vertical size of TOF0 ? Reducing its thickness While keeping a good light collection It needs beforehand a full understanding of the beam spot at the position of TOF0 What about the rate capabilities of the PMTs and the proposed electronics with random hits instead of uniformly time-spaced laser pulses? P. Soler: proposal to perform « real world » tests in the synchrotron vault at RAL (Associated Dead time ?) Why using a complicated laser system for calibration ? 7

9. CKOV1 Two conceptual designs presented Talk presented by Lucien Cremaldi 8

10. The quest of a radiator … Range of indices to get it pion blind at 300 MeV/c 9

11. Questions/comments about CKOV1 But the responses for pions and muons overlap at the high-momentum end for all « reasonable » radiators for not commercially available materials (like aerogel with n=1.12)except cryogenic liquids (Liq. H 2 with n=1.123) bringing their own (big) set of problems Aerogel n=1.12 Smaller indices Smaller light yield Light collection in addition to the challenging engineering, safety and operation issues … 10

12. Simulation of CKOV1 Talk presented by Steve Kahn 11

13. CKOV1 efficiency P  =240 MeV/c Light collection efficiency or particle detection efficiency ? 12

14. CKOV2 Aerogel box Front mirror Particle entrance window Particle exit window Back mirror Optical windows, Winston cones, PM’s + various small elements (clamping pieces for windows) Talk presented by GG 13

15. CKOV2 performance Electronic Threshold (p.e.) n = 1.02n = 1.04 00.002 10.0110.003 20.2140.025 30.5130.146 Everything is summarized in the electron detection inefficiency table 14

16. Questions/comments about CKOV2 Study of electron detection efficiency based on Tom’s particle files Mechanical/optical design understood and optimized (hopefully) Simulation: nowhere, not yet started On behalf of Captain Vittorio 1. Choice of a good internal geometry 2. Proposal to use n=1.04 aerogel 15

17. EmCal Talks presented by A. Tonazzo, L. Tortora Detailed descriptions from concept, to design, construction and simulation Including detailed cost estimates 16

18. EmCal simulation and performances Talk presented by R. Sandström 10  mm rad emittance Muon momentum centered around 200 MeV/c (  30 MeV/c) NN training Performance for subsystems Assumption target = efficiency > 99.9 % purity > 99.8 % Achieved! 17

19. Questions/comments about EmCal The simulation should be extended up to muon momenta as high as 300 MeV/c. The beam particles should come from a full simulation of the MICE beam line. Influence of the fibre free zone at the edges of adjacent modules/sectors Does the inclusion of CKOV2 input improve the PID performances at higher momenta ? 18

20. Issues common to all PID systems 1. Full documentation and update of the TRD Certainly easier today for TOF, CKOV2 and EmCal 2. Internal audit regarding designs and safety It is an integral and unavoidable duty for the acceptance of our designs Milestone tables, GANTT charts, supports, DAQ building elements, ancillaries (cables, access, supports) … 3....before going before the (external) RAL audit committee and getting hopefully a green light for construction Many most helpful persons are at hand and willing to help you ! 19