1. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 1 M. Apollonio IC - London beam line optics

2. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 2 beam line status: ∙ estimated proton flux from measurements ∙ rates from GVA1/GVA2 analysis (reminder) ∙ optics availability ∙ sw availability future plans ∙ causes of reduced rate and actions ∙ AoB conclusions layout

3. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 3 reminder on desired features P  = [140 MeV/c, 240 MeV/c],  p = +/- 10% easily tunable matched emittance: 1 mm rad <  N < 10 mm rad deliverable to MICE high purity muon beam high rate “600 muons” per target actuation [1 Hz, 1 ms window] acceptable losses for ISIS Beam Features Beamline Target Optics Diffuser Beamline Status Conclusions

4. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 4 Beam Features Beamline Production Optics Diffuser Beamline Status Conclusions 1 3 4 2  production/capture  decay  transport match to MICE MICE:  –  decay beam line beam line constituted by 4 parts

5. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 5 10 ms 20 ms target working principle 1 ms titanium blade dipping at 1 Hz in the ISIS proton beam intercept just ~1ms of ISIS accelerated beam withdrawal must be quick to avoid scraping next filling  extreme accelerations (80g) beam loss must comply with ISIS requirements [P. Hodgson, CM22 19/10/08] Beam Features Beamline Production Optics Diffuser Beamline Status Conclusions

6. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 6 some key questions: how many protons per spill are we generating? and then pions/muons? rate in april/may with a D1-D2 line for protons how much beam can we “shave” before “disturbing” ISIS operations [K.Long, CM22 19/10/08]? initial simulation of ISIS beam with ORBIT and comparison with signals from BLMs [A. Dobbs, CM22 19/10/08] how well we understand the line? alignment magnets Beam Features Beamline Production Optics Diffuser Beamline Status Conclusions

7. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 7 IC2: >29/3 BM1: >29/3 GVA1: > 4/4GVA2: > 29/3 BM2:>29/3 MICE beamline: magnet configuration and detector locations (march/april) D1 D2 I D1 =400 A  P D1 =480 MeV/c I D2 =170 A  P D2 =450 MeV/c  p~30 MeV/c Beam Features Beamline Production Optics Diffuser Beamline Status Conclusions

8. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 8 proton rate @ target target @ 50/128 Hz 2ms acq. gate GVA1/2 active for 100 s R8BLM1 signal ~ 50 mV GVA1=14 p/dip(1ms), GVA2= 4p/dip(ms) it corresponds to 2.6E9 (+/-1.3E9) PoT (G4Beamline) x500 less Beam Features Beamline Production Optics Diffuser Beamline Status Conclusions

9. Scaled beam loss: HEP Test Beam target: 200 mV beam loss at 50 Hz Corresponds to ‘loss’ of: 2.4 × 10 9 protons per dip 1.2 × 10 11 protons per sec MICE target Beam loss: Corresponding to ‘loss’ of 1.2 × 10 11 protons per sec … i.e. per dip (at 1 Hz) is 2 V i.e. 2000 mV 600 good μ/spill from 1.7 × 10 12 protons Beam Features Beamline Production Optics Diffuser Beamline Status Conclusions

10. Conclusions: Goal: Increase particle rate in MICE Muon Beam HEP Test Beam target: Indicates that to achieve desired rate may require upgrade to collimation system Radiation surveys: To date: No evidence for dose in DSA or MICE Hall No evidence for activation of ISIS Tools for the understanding of beam loss and particle rate In place … … but, improvements still required (e.g. r/o BPM) Beam Features Beamline Production Optics Diffuser Beamline Status Conclusions

11. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 11 ISIS Beam Beam Features Beamline Production Optics Diffuser Beamline Status Conclusions

12. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 12 Beam Features Beamline Production Optics Diffuser Beamline Status Conclusions

13. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 13 Beam Features Beamline Production Optics Diffuser Beamline Status Conclusions

14. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 14 june 2 nd june 3 rd count rates: G4beamline predictions vs measurements MC / meas: discrepancy x2 Comparing G4Beamline to DATA (june): see how well we understand the Q-poles Beam Features Beamline Production Optics Diffuser Beamline Status Conclusions

15. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 15 Comparing G4Beamline to DATA (june) MC DATA 306 72 r = 4.25 2230 560 r = 3.98 2021 (x6.60) 833(x11.57) r = 2.42 8159 (x3.65) 2603 (x4.66) r = 3.13  6.3%  -29% 2016 (x6.60) 1297 (x18. / x1.56) r = 0.64 8945 (x4.01) 5077 (x9.07/ x1.95) r = 0.57  11% greatest effect, amplified by a long drift CASE1 CASE2 CASE3 Beam Features Beamline Production Optics Diffuser Beamline Status Conclusions

16. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 16 What do we know of Q1-3 ? magnet measurements g (meas.) = 0.5168+/-0.0011 (u.s.) 0.5125+/-0.0012 (d.s.) Tm-1 @ 50 A g (specs) = 10 Tm-1 @ 1000A Leff(specs) = 853.4 mm [no measurement available] magnet positioning geometrical survey  slight misalignment Q1-3 axis to tgt point G4Beamline implementation follows values as given in NOTE 066 (T. Roberts) uses a ??? model for B1-2 I assume it uses a “standard” model for quadrupoles with k 2 =g /B  Beam Features Beamline Production Optics Diffuser Beamline Status Conclusions

17. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 17 TEST: vary Q1-3 Leff to check possible systematics Leff (mm) GVA1 (MC) GVA2 (MC) R1 [data] (GV1/306) R2 (GV2/72) -10%14719104.812.6 -5%174611025.715.3 853.4201610976.6 [4.0] 15.2 [9.1] +5%235215477.6821.5 Question: can we be so wrong in determining Leff ?

18. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 18 Other reasons? a) efficiency of GVA1/GVA2? No we consider relative increase in count rate b) alignment? Less certain... HOWEVER: bear in mind, a factor 2 while we miss ~ x500 so...... Pion production (i.e. Target dipping) is AN ISSUE for the Beam Line. This changes the way we have been considering it so far

19. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 19 Hi Marco Sorry for the late response but I have just returned from a week on leave. Peter has already filled you in on the mechanical "run on" tests we completed a week or so ago so I won't write anymore on that. The relay driver board design was finished just before we started the tests, but as there are still a few issues with the diffuser that may need some redesign I have put the manufacture of the board on hold until I know whether I need to make any additions to the design. The tests indicated that the control logic will need to be changed (if we don't add anymore solenoid valves to the air crate) so I will be working on this over the next few weeks, while the electronics crate will also need some minor changes. Both these tasks will be carried out between other CEG work commitments. I'm sorry I can't put a definite date on completion of this work at the moment. I have received several emails from RAL requesting answers to questions regarding the installation (electronics issues) so I will try to answer these as soon as possible. Cheers, Mike. Hi Marco, The device has currently tested with running the air motors. We found several problems with the design, some of them you may have known. The linear driving of the carrier disc forwards and backwards along the cylindrical drum:- We are now trying to use an encoder to govern the travelling of the carrier to prevent it hitting the bottom (it will jam there if it goes too far). The 2 micro-switch will still be used for emergency only The driving of the bayonet pin:- The length between holding point of motor shaft and the point of reaction force was too long and the holding area was too small that cause the motor shaft bouncing offs the gear due to large deflection on the shaft. The motor/gear box holder has been re-designing to increase the stiffness. The driving of the carousel:- The gear box used hasn’t got enough output power to drive the carousel when the heaviest lead disc was put on 1 holder leaving other holders empty. Also the motor shaft was bent due to the same phenomena as above stated in item 2. The worm wheel and gear with 65:1 ratio will be used to replace the old design and also a new motor holder bracket has been re-designing to increase the stiffness. For the response time / residue air in the air tube when the motors stop:- It had also been tested that the 16 meter long air tube would affect the response time when the motors stops. With a short pipe ~ 3 meters, the overrun distance is about 0.02mm when the air stops. With 17 meter, the overrun distance is ~ 0.04 to 0.08 mm when the sir stops. The micro-switch has 0.3 mm travelling distance before it reach its end. Therefore, the 2 micro switches will still be safe to place at the bottom of the cylindrical drum. This is also found that the back pressure was created when the valve shuts before the air exhausts out. Mike Dawson will design the logic sequence to ensure the residue air exhaust from the pipe before the valves shut. The magnetic effect on the air motors:- It is proved that the motors can be kaput when running under magnetic field. We will replace all 3 motors by non-magnetised one and Mike Tacon had contacted the supplier Briggs Air motor last week to specify our requirement. We are working in the positive direction to solve the above problems though there was some setback during tests. It’s not too bad as we discovered the problem earlier and all seems to have solutions. You are welcome to give us advice on any tests that you think we may need to go through. Regards, Peter

20. Vert Pos is the DISTANCE FROM CL == Y

21. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 21

22. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 22 Muon Beam Features Beamline Target Optics Diffuser State of Beamline Conclusion [K. Tilley, MICE Beamline Review, IC 2007]  optics  optics Transport-Turtle optics design

23. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 23 diffuser: - interface between beamline and MICE - lead thicknesses (T)  define  N   =1.4 mm rad x x’

24. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 24 [MA, MICE Beamline Review, IC 2007] Diffuser Plates Thicknesses in ( ,P) space

25. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 25 Oxford University

26. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 26 p and e optics for calibration purposes - from  optics - currents rescaled according to local momenta TOF0 e optics used for PID detectors calibrations tuned to ~100 MeV/c at TOF0 [K. Tilley]

27. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 27 BM1: >29/3 MICE beamline detector locations GVA1: > 4/4 IC2: >29/3 GVA2: > 29/3 BM2:>29/3 TOF0+1

28. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 28 TOF0 + 1 TOF0TOF1 [see M. Rayner’s talk]

29. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 29 D1 D2 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 DS Q5Q6Q7Q8Q9 still not working [P. Kyberd’s talk] MICE magnet status superconducting solenoid Muon Beam Features Beamline Target Optics Diffuser State of Beamline Conclusion  Q9  Q8  Q7  Q6  Q5  Q4  D2  D1 Q3 Q2 Q1 commissionedRemote control Soak testPolarity check PS current Magnet cooling PS cooling Magnet completeted not completed to be done    

30. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 30 Muon Beam Features Beamline Target Optics Diffuser State of Beamline Conclusion summary - all beam line magnets in place - 3 quadrupole-triplets, 2 dipoles, decay solenoid - all non-sc magnets working - first transported protons on March 29 th - most of beam line detectors in place (DAQ exercised) - first analysis: - n. of protons low  how to increase it … - MC vs measured shows a x2 discrepancy - optics for p/  /  and e ready (w and w.o. sc-solenoid) next steps - fix sc-decay solenoid - commission T2a & T2b - TOF1 installation  determine  (beam) - commission diffuser - collimators/correctors …

31. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 31 the end

32. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 32 upstream beamline (in the synchrotron vault) a) target Station: p on titanium blade   + p high P   high P   small exit angle ~25 o b) 1 st Quadrupole Triplet Q1-Q2-Q3 first focussing: maximise acceptance before the decay solenoid c) 1 st Dipole D1 first momentum selection: 60 o bending B 1 [select  ]  B 2 [select  ] 1  production/capture Muon Beam Features Beamline Target Optics Diffuser State of Beamline Conclusion 60 o

33. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 33 Muon Beam Features Beamline Target Optics Diffuser State of Beamline Conclusion 2  decay channel   Maximise number of muons in decay section: highest decay solenoid field 5 T consistent with controllable  beam profile. @ 25 o

34. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 34 3  transport 4 highest  momenta  allow selection of 'backward' going  for higher purity & higher fluxes. Muon Beam Features Beamline Target Optics Diffuser State of Beamline Conclusion 99 % 30 o

35. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 35 4match to MICE Muon Beam Features Beamline Target Optics Diffuser State of Beamline Conclusion Q4-Q9 define the optics prior to the diffuser diffuser used to inflate initial emittance in a controlled fashion variety of final configurations and several momenta  Five thicknesses of Pb  Changeable via remote control

36. m.apollonioUKNF meeting - Trinity College, Oxford - 15/16 Sep 2008 36 Muon Beam Features Beamline Target Optics Diffuser State of Beamline Conclusion MICE beamline upstream section D1Q1-Q2-Q3targetvacuum pipe