1. MICE Beamline Commissioning Linda R. Coney NFMCC Meeting 16 January 2010

2. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Outline  Overview of MICE beam line  2009 Run Goals  Target u Operation u Stability  Detector Commissioning  , e, p, and  beams  Beam optics optimization and measurements u Upstream Quadrupoles u Decay Solenoid u Muon beam emittance measurements  Conclusions 2

3. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 MICE Beam Line  TOF2 attached to front of KL and installed end of November 3

4. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Goals for Running in 2009  Begin MICE Step I  Commission new target  Commission detectors u GVA1, CKOVa, CKOVb, TOF0, TOF1, FNAL Beam Profile Monitors, KL  High intensity running for study of ISIS activation  Commission Decay Solenoid  Calibrate TOF system  Calibrate CKOV and KL  Perform Beam Studies: u Beam loss vs. Particle Rate u Optimize Upstream Beamline (Q1, Q2, Q3) u Decay Solenoid optimization  Optimize DAQ for increased particle rate  Measure muon beam emittance 4

5. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Outline  Overview of MICE beam line  2009 Run Goals  Target u Operation u Stability  Detector Commissioning  , e, p, and  beams  Beam optics optimization and measurements u Upstream Quadrupoles u Decay Solenoid u Muon beam emittance measurements  Conclusions 5

6. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Target Operations  50,000 pulses of redesigned target in test stand in R78  New target installed in ISIS August 2009 u Run at base rate (50 Hz/32) and with ISIS at 50 Hz (Normal User Run) u Inspected after 12k, 22k, 42k, 63k – PASSED  Target is working beautifully – NO problems  Target stability checked every 5000 pulses u Process to monitor target behavior agreed upon with ISIS  Target timing wrt ISIS MS signal monitored  Coordinating Beam Loss measured by MICE with that measured by ISIS  Target Operation: 112,000 pulses to date u Machine Physics – 8 days of MICE running u September User Run – 10 days u Nov/Dec User Run – 12 days 6 MICE target path ISIS cycles MS marker ISIS losses

7. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Target Monitoring  Target stability checked every 5000 pulses u Study Beam Center Distance (BCD) to monitor target stability  Clear difference between BCD distribution for functioning target and failing target u Failing target has much broader spread u T2 distribution 3-4 times as broad u Interpreted as target “sticking”  Target BCD very stable 7

8. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Target Data Taking  Target Operation Studies: u Search for ideal timing with respect to ISIS cycle s Also a function of target depth u ISIS Beam loss vs particle rate study s Increase target depth, producing ISIS beam loss of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 1, 2, 3 and 4 V s In 2008, maximum ISIS beam loss 50 mV  Found edge of beam at injection  need to avoid next pulse on out-swing u Studies of different accelerations: modified drive voltages on capacitor bank  ISIS machine study: beam bump at MICE target 8 Normal BLMs around ISIS with MICE target inactive (Sector 7) Target operating at 2V beamloss

9. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Target Operations  Beamloss (in Sector 7) for the 13 hour run at 1V  Two distinct peaks (although only fitted a single Gaussian)  Double structure due to ISIS beam wandering in cyclic pattern  Not due to variation in target depth!  Survey of target area after long 1V run  Slight activation (max. 500  Sieverts/hour) in couple of spots near target  No impact on measurements around the rest of ISIS  ISIS suggests repeat at 5V beamloss 9 Activation Study Beam Loss Variation

10. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 ISIS Beam Bump Study  BEAM BUMP TEST (last 2ms of cycle): D. Adams & M. Popovic  1ms-long kick generated to change nominal orbit  New orbit kept stable for another 1ms  All brought back to the nominal trajectory  The test was performed as follows: 0- use nominal trajectory setting (ISIS) 1- set target BCD for 50 mV losses 2- align target dip minimum with the extraction edge 3- record dip depth and delay 4- extract target 5- introduce the bumped orbit 6- insert target until produce 50mV loss again 7- record dip depth and delay  Results   depth of ~5mm reproduced the 50mV loss (predicted value was 7mm)  ISIS beam closer to target reduces depth needed to generate a defined beamloss  faster insertion, better control of next pulse clipping u Bumped orbit well controlled locally u Rest of orbit very stable 10

11. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Beam Loss vs Particle Rate Study  Beamline set for 300 MeV/c  - beam  Losses calculated using fit to curve of BLM7SUM peak  Error bars (tiny) just from rms/sqrt(#counts) Counts in GVA1 11 A. Dobbs

12. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Beam Loss vs Particle Rate Study II  Beamline set for 300 MeV/c  - beam  Losses calculated using fit to curve of BLM7SUM loss peak  Error bars (tiny) just from rms/sqrt(#counts) Counts in FNAL BPM1 12 A. Dobbs

13. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Next: Beam Loss vs Particle Rate  Repeat analysis using integrated beam loss rather than fit to peak method u ISIS determines MICE losses using integration over full cycle  Rate vs beam loss plots as function of particle type u Uses TOF for PID and rate counter u Cannot use BPMs for this as beam content may change between them u Can use current data for this study  Repeat study with positive particles  Repeat study with muon beamline  Take more data points at higher beam loss 13

14. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Outline  Overview of MICE beam line  2009 Run Goals  Target u Operation u Stability  Detector Commissioning  , e, p, and  beams  Beam optics optimization and measurements u Upstream Quadrupoles u Decay Solenoid u Muon beam emittance measurements  Conclusions 14

15. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 MICE Beamline and Detectors  15

16. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Time of Flight Counters  TOF0, TOF1 installed for September & Nov/Dec User Runs  TOF2 installed in late November  Horizontal and vertical bars  Have proven to be invaluable in beamline commissioning Tof-0 0.48 m 10 x 4cm scintillator bars  x = 1.15 cm  t = 50 ps Tof-1 0.48 m 7 x 6cm scintillator bars  x = 1.73 cm  t = 50 ps 16

17. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Data Taking Program: Positive Particles  Detector Calibration: u 300 MeV/c pions - 4000 target pulses (translates to about 330,000 particles used for calibrating the TOF system) u 250 MeV/c pions - 350 target pulses (also for TOF) u 200 MeV/c pions - 450 pulses (also for TOF) u 300 MeV/c positrons - 1500 target pulses (CKOV and KL calorimeter) u 150 MeV/c positrons - 1200 target pulses (CKOV and KL calorimeter)  Beam Studies: u 330 MeV/c pions to study Decay Solenoid effects on beam optics - 2000 pulses  Muon Beams: u 444 MeV/c pi+ to mu+ beam - 500 pulses 17

18. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 333 MeV/c pion beam  Sept 10 with 500mV losses 18

19. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 333 MeV/c proton beam  Sept 06 19

20. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 444 MeV/c pi+ to mu+ beam  Motivation to switch beam polarity 20

21. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 444 MeV/c pi- to mu- beam  After switched to negative beam 21

22. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Data Taking Program: Negative Particles  In October – switched beamline polarity  Detector Calibration :  300 MeV/c   - 2800 target pulses (TOF system) u 300 MeV/c electrons - 5750 target pulses (TOF, CKOV and KL calorimeter) u 150 MeV/c electrons - 1200 target pulses (TOF, CKOV and KL calorimeter)  Beamline Studies :  300 MeV/c   for particle rate vs beam loss study – 400 pulses  300 MeV/c   for spill gate vs particle rate study – 500 pulses  330 MeV/c   for particle rate vs beam loss study – 2400 pulses s 50mV, 100mV, 200mV, 300mV, 400 mV, 500 mV losses  Optimization of Upstream Beamline - 330 MeV/c   Q1,Q2,Q3 scans – 1100 pulses  Muon Beams – Emittance Measurements  444 MeV/c   to 250 MeV/c   beam - 1500  337 MeV/c   to 250 MeV/c   beam – 1550  444, 420, 400, 360, 337 MeV/c   to 250 MeV/c   beam – 500 pulses 22

23. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Data Taking Program with TOF2  End of November – TOF1 moved, TOF2 installed  Detector Calibration with TOF1 trigger:  300 MeV/c   : 6500 target pulses (calibrating TOF system & target delay study)  250 MeV/c   : -500 target pulses (TOF system) u 300 MeV/c electrons - 3000 target pulses (TOF,CKOV and KL)  Muon Beams - Emittance measurement data  444 MeV/c   to 250 MeV/c   beam - 9100 pulses  337 MeV/c   to 250 MeV/c   beam – 1000 pulses  444 MeV/c   to 200 MeV/c   beam – 1000 pulses  444 MeV/c   to 300 MeV/c   beam – 1000 pulses  400 MeV/c   to 225 MeV/c   beam – 2000 pulses  337 MeV/c   to 200 MeV/c   beam – 2600 pulses 23

24. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 TOF Calibration  Many TOF bars to calibrate  Need lots of data!  Last year’s data……..This year…  TOF system with TOF2 in progress 2009 300 MeV/c increased statistics  2009 330 MeV/c 2008 (Peaks overlap) e   24

25. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 TOF Calibration: Time Resolution  Different calibration done for September and Nov/Dec Runs  Discrimination threshold changed and improved time resolution  September: TOF0 – 52 ps, TOF1 – 68 ps  Nov/Dec: TOF0 – 51 ps, TOF1 – 58 ps  TOF1 completely calibrated, TOF0 all but slab0 and slab9 in both planes 25

26. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Cherenkovs  Two aerogel Cherenkov counters  Installed downstream of Q6 and TOF0  Used to separate e/  /  220-350 MeV/c  e/  /  calibration data taken  Sample electron data shown 26

27. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 e/  Identifier  KL lead/scintillating fiber calorimeter module u Installed on temporary support with TOF1 in September u Moved downstream and mounted with TOF2 in November u Calibration in progress u Electron data taken u FADCs all working u DAQ restructured & ok  Electron Muon Ranger (EMR) u Triangular prismatic scintillator bars u Being constructed at UGeneva u Installation later this year 27

28. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Outline  Overview of MICE beam line  2009 Run Goals  Target u Operation u Stability  Detector Commissioning  , e, p, and  beams  Beam optics optimization and measurements u Upstream Quadrupoles u Decay Solenoid u Muon beam emittance measurements  Conclusions 28

29. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Upstream Beamline 29

30. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Optimization of Upstream Beamline: Q1,Q2,Q3 scan  Q1-2-3 varied from nominal value  Charged particles counted downstream of Decay Solenoid  Compared to MC u Charged   -,  -, e-  Use MC to predict effect for single current changes  verify in the next run 14 nominal config. data MC 30

31. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 f1-only (MC) DATA Q1 scan Good agreement between data and MC for variation of only Q1 Optimization of Upstream Beamline: Q1,Q2,Q3 scan 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 31

32. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 f2-only (MC) DATA Q2 scan Agreement between data and MC not as good as that for Q1 Optimization of Upstream Beamline: Q1,Q2,Q3 scan 32 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 32

33. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Optimization of Upstream Beamline: Q1,Q2,Q3 scan  Q3 scan  Data not agree with MC  Q3 could be more sensitive to small misalignment f3-only (MC) DATA 33 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 33

34. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Decay Solenoid Optimization  330 MeV/c pion beam  DS nominal setting 550 A (3.1T)  Vary +/- 10% and study profile in TOF0  Check data vs MC (our understanding of BL) Run 1121 DS lower 0.30T  Run 1123 Nominal DS  Run 1125 DS up 0.30T TOF0  TOF1  34 Study still in progress

35. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Muon Beam Studies at MICE!                               The MICE experiment takes 17000 target pulses of muon beam data!  ~170,000  at TOF1  Muon beam  studies begin! Worldwide celebrations ensue! Locals in Britain express strong support for the experiment Blimey!Muons! 35 Extra!

36. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Muon Beam Data  Preliminary muon rate survey  337 MeV/c  - to 250 MeV/c  - beam  Varied target depth to study muon rate as function of beam loss  VERY preliminary!  Muon Beams - Emittance measurement data  444 MeV/c   to 250 MeV/c   beam - 10,600 pulses  337 MeV/c   to 250 MeV/c   beam – 2500 pulses  444 MeV/c   to 200 MeV/c   beam – 1000 pulses  444 MeV/c   to 300 MeV/c   beam – 1000 pulses  400 MeV/c   to 225 MeV/c   beam – 2000 pulses  337 MeV/c   to 200 MeV/c   beam – 2600 pulses 36

37. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Muon Beam Emittance Measurements  Purpose: generate the elements of the “emittance-momentum matrix” u  Study performance at every portion of a full cooling channel  Can we use the TOFs to demonstrate the matrix elements? Q1Q2Q3Q4Q5Q6Q7Q8Q9 DK sol D2D1 TOF1TOF0 Target Diffuser Cooling channel and spectrometers 3610 140 200 240Initial 4D  N (mm) Absorber P z (MeV/c) Data MICE note 176 Apollonio, Cobb M. Rayner 37

38. Q4 Q1 Dipole1 DK solenoid Q2Q3 Dipole2 Q5Q6Q7Q8Q9 dnstream BL tuning: match to diffuser  P  =208 MeV/c P  =444 MeV/c  P  =214 MeV/c fix D1 fix D2 P  =255 MeV/c Marco Apollonio - Imperial College 38

39. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Measuring ( ,P) from DATA - Rationale - check if an optics produces the foreseen (  ) at diffuser - measure  (and P) of the muon beam - measure beam spread (sig x ) and divergence (sig x ’ = sig(p x /p z )) - How? - use TOF0 / 1 as (x,y) stations - define muon sample - track mu’s in the Q7-8-9 triplet - infer x’, y’  (x,x’) (y,y’) - scatter plots give phase spaces Mark Rayner’s tools 39

40. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Muon Beam  Measurement  Use PID on December’s scaled    decay beam line data  Define muon sample “Central” beamline optics 444 MeV/c   250 MeV/c  at D2 6-200 Runs 1380-1397 and 1391-1393 Intermediate momentum beam line with scaled quad currents Runs 1407-1408 444 MeV/c   225 MeV/c  at D2 6-140 (rescaled currents) Runs 1409-1411 337 MeV/c   200 MeV/c  at D2 M. Rayner 40

41. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Reconstruction procedure  Iterative calculation of increasingly good s=  z+  and P  Begin with P from P/E=  z/t s 1 Calculate a linear transfer map at P from TOF0 to TOF1 (top hat quadrupoles) s 2 Deduce x 0 ’ and y 0 ’ from x 1 and y 1 s 3 Integrate ds while tracking the initial trace space vector through the beam line s 4 Make a better estimate of P from P/E=s/t s 5 Make a small Bethe-Bloch correction for the energy loss in air between the TOFs M. Rayner41 Marco’s=6mm pabsorber=200 MeV/c centre of the  -p matrix beam

42. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Muon Beam  Measurement : x and y trace space Truth Recon’d det. sim. Data M. Rayner 42

43. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Goals for Running in 2009 Revisited  Begin MICE Step I   Commission new target   Commission detectors  u GVA1, CKOVa, CKOVb, TOF0, TOF1, FNAL Beam Profile Monitors, KL  High intensity running for study of ISIS activation   Commission Decay Solenoid   Perform Studies: u Decay Solenoid optimization  - in progress u Beam loss vs. Particle Rate  - in progress u Optimize Upstream Beamline (Q1, Q2, Q3)   Calibrate TOF system   Calibrate CKOV and KL  ongoing  Optimize DAQ for increased particle rate  ongoing  Measure muon beam emittance – started – ongoing 43

44. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Conclusions  Beamline is working! – negative or positive particles u New target operating smoothly - Systematic monitoring of performance u Decay Solenoid routinely operated – factor 5 increase muon rate  Major increase in loss limits 50 mV (2008)  1V (2009)  DAQ increase in efficiency: <50 particles/spill (2008)  ≤ 200 part/spill (2009) u Beam loss vs particle rate shows linear dependence  Detectors are working! u TOF0, TOF1 calibrated – TOF2 next u Need more data for TOF2, KL u EMR installation – Summer2010  Muon beam optics physics is happening! u Upstream beamline is tuned u Initial measurement of muon beam emittance u Muon Rate Study – in progress  More ( ,P) matrix data in February/March 44 

45. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010

46. Target Operations  Beamloss (in Sector 7) for the 13 hour run at 1V  Two distinct peaks (although only fitted a single Gaussian)  Double structure due to ISIS beam wandering in cyclic pattern  Not due to variation in target depth!  Survey of target area after long 1V run  Slight activation (max. 500  Sieverts/hour) in couple of spots near target  ISIS suggests repeat at 5V beamloss 9 Activation Study Beam Loss Variation

47. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Target Operations II  Target I stability from 16 Sept 2009 u Characteristic double peak due to inherent 0.15 mm position resolution and the pulse by pulse capture position  deltaD for 5 th =.13 and for 16 th =.12  Running at same depth – consistent behavior 6

48. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Decay Solenoid  Operation of Decay Solenoid is now routine  Provides gain of ~5 in particle flux Without DSWith DS 34

49. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Decay Solenoid  Operation of Decay Solenoid is now routine  Provides gain of ~5 in particle flux Without DSWith DS 35

50. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 Beam Stop Open!  Remote operation of Beam Stop

51. Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010 TOF Calibration  Time of Flight spectra for several beam optics and species 26