1. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG1 STATUS REPORT BEAM WORKING GROUP Presented by L.Gatignon COLLABORATION MEETING 1 APRIL 2005 Includes: Beam design (optics, layout, Turtle, Halo) CEDARadaptation and integration MAMUD Spectrometer magnets Tracker integration Cost estimates

2. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG2 Beam Working group activities Contributions from : C.Biino, A.Ceccucci, G.Collazuol, L.Di Lella, N.Doble, M.Fiorini, L.Gatignon, A.Gonidec, B.Hallgren, M.Losasso, A.Placci, G.Ruggiero, M.Scarpa, H.Wahl, O.Yuschenko and many others The group had 7 bi-weekly meetings and a number of subgroup meetings. Web page: http://na48.web.cern.ch/NA48/NA48-3/groups/beam/

3. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG3 Beam design (N.Doble)  The unseparated 75 GeV/c beam option has been maintained  A beam with 2 bends in the same direction (which would kill NA60) turns out to be less good in terms of muon background reduction  The beam working group assumes that a RICH for  -  separation has to be accommodated  The needs of the Gigatracker have been included  Niels has updated the optics  Details are available at http://cern.ch/doble now including beatch, transport, turtle and halo.http://cern.ch/doble

4. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG4 Niels

5. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG5 Niels

6. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG6 Last minute results on muon halo Niels Doble with RICH At CEDAR-PM’s (r=10 cm)10 kHz/cm 2 Straw Chamber plane at |x| > 8 cm 7 MHz Average /1 cm straw tube30 kHz Maximum /1 cm between 8 and 9 cm300 kHz CHOD, LKR Total rate 7 MHz Average 0.2 kHz/cm 2 Maximum at r=12 cm 2 kHz/cm 2 13 Large angle Photon Vetoes (27 m2) Total 15 MHz max  1.5 MHz/m 2 OR rate 4 MHz Intermediate ring calorimeters 1,2 (7<r<12 cm) 3 MHz each =10kHz/cm 2 Small angle calorimeter (r=10 cm) 0.5 MHz 1.5 kHz/cm 2 For 3 10 12 ppp over a 3 second effective spill

7. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG7 Alternative: Solenoidal Detector (Y.Potrebenikov et al)

8. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG8 Conclusions NA48/3 LSD Acceptance (Reg I) 4.7 % 3.0 Acceptance (Reg II) 19.1% 12.9 Acceptance (full) 23.8 % 15.9 % LSD Acceptance for (with 10 -6 background from competing K + decay modes) - 18.9 % +   ++   + Saved energy - 0.4 MJoul Power (for cooling) - 0.2 MW An estimation cost – 5M CHF (without cooling system) Conclusions for LSD Do not consider for proposal !!!

9. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG9 RICH ???  In the beam working group we had a number of exceedingly important and interesting presentations by O.Yushchenko and G.Ruggiero concerning the background rejection and the need for extra  separation with a RICH.  These discussion go well beyond the beam working group and deserve to be presented separately.  We had lively discussions in the beam working group and feel that a RICH should be accommodated in the beam design.

10. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG10 Proposal, beam cost estimates  Proposal based on ‘conventional detector’ + RICH  Cost estimates are under way Beam elements, rectifiers, magnet cabling, work, …  We need to modify the 40 cm diameter hole at the end of ECN3 (impact on Krypton dewar) ?  Cedar implementation studies (H 2 safety, …) just starting  Separate cost of beam line itself from spectrometer, MAMUD and Cedar budget  The beam section of the LoI has been updated so as to reflect the latest status of the beam design

11. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG11 Vacuum requirements Pressure needed: G.Collazuol, FLUKA + Toy MC Without Cedar,  10 -6 with Cedar Suggestion: design vacuum for 3 10 -7 mbar

12. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG12 Plus outgassing from Straw chambers (negligible?) Photon vetoes (strong, if not encapsulated) A.Gonidec, V.Falaleev without Cedar

13. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG13 Cedar optics

14. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG14 Radial impact point at diaphragm where:L 1 = dist. diaphragm – chromatic corrector L 2 = dist chromatic corrector – mirror R 1, R m = Rcurv of entrance face, mirror plane mangin mirror R c = Rcurv of chromatic corrector lense must be zero ( r d equal for all Z o !!! ) Optics optimisation Easier by MC…

15. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG15 100.0±0.48 mm 102.3±0.45 mm Cedar-West (H 2 filled )

16. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG16 Cedar-W (H 2 ) vs Cedar-N (He) comparison

17. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG17 Z-position where  is generated [mm] Cedar-North Cedar-West generated hitting mirror hitting mirror Nose ‘Nose’ not so useful for Cedar-West (Efficiency curve almost identical with and without nose)

18. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG18 Position of photons hitting LAMA cells Zoom onto unit #1 Cedar-West, Hydrogen filled

19. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG19 Lab tests of several photon detectors planned A.Placci: Anode, Cathode current:

20. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG20 Photon detectors  Hamamatsu H7260 anode current 1.6 10 -19 10 6 5 10 7 4 p.e/sec gain flux p.e/PM This gives 64  Amps for maximum rating 100  Amps, 6  Amps/channel What about COMPASS SCiFi trackers (work at 50 MHz)?  Alternatively replace each H7260 by four 10 mm round tubes, type R2496, 8 stages (not 10), quartz window, 160 nm cut-off! Worse filling factor but better current situation Need Winston cone to collect light  Silicon Avalanche PM Inconveniences: only 3x3 mm2, huge background at room temp, quantum efficiency < 10%, no direct contact to manufacturers  Micromegas + CsI ? Never seen to work in real detector yet To be followed up with J.Derre et al A.Placci

21. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG21 Readout proposal by B.Hallgren The PM current is amplified with a gain of ~1.8 kohm Bandwidth 1MHz to ~280 MHz SNR = 180 (amplifiers and resistor thermal)

22. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG22

23. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG23

24. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG24 Block diagram of front-end electronics FPGA

25. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG25 1 Gs/s FADC & TELL1 (using the LKr readout as reference)  x 25 faster than LKr  But only 8 instead of 10 bits as LKr  <20 psec? ( about 6 times better than LKr CPD)  Noise?  Double pulse resolution 5 nsec – > simulation  Pulse shape analysis Continuous recording of the detector signals Easier zero suppression than LKr (software comparator) Rejection of accidentals, pileup and baseline shifts  Coincidence with all other channels  Use of TELL1 gives big savings in HW and SW design  Power increased compared to present TELL1 (but only 8 / crate)

26. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG26 Price for 32 channels 1 TELL1 with 4xGigabit Ethernet 5350 16 1 Gs/s dual 8bit ADC 3800 8 FPGA Cyclone2 2EPC35F484 1600 PCB and other components 1250 --------- ~12000 *8 To be added: 1 Crate with power supplies + 960 MHz clock distribution + DAQ electronics (PC(s) with 32 Gigabit Ethernet connections)

27. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG27 Cedar recommendations  Cedar-West with Hydrogen is the preferred option  The heavy ‘nose’ at the entrance can be suppressed  Efficiency and separation similar to N 2  Suggestion to use (Linear Array?) multi-anode PM’s (or possibly Silicon avalanche PM’s, or Micromegas considered as alternative by J.Derre)  Singles rates reduced from 50 to 3 MHz  Size of photon detectors well matched to optics  Readout seems feasible (Bj.Hallgren)

28. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG28 CEDAR preliminary cost estimates ItemCost Mechanical design (“nose”, windows, etc)3 man months Construction of 2 modules (incl 1 spare)100 kCHF Vacuum work, special windows10 kCHF Hydrogen supply and venting infrastructure50 kCHF Mounting2 man months Gas control, pressure gauges, H 2 -rated pump, … ? Photon detectors, incl HV supplies80 kCHF Electronics and cabling: 32x12kCHF +…≥ 100 kCHF Total> 340kCHF + >5 man months

29. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG29 MNP33-2 (M.Losasso)  Carbon copy of existing MNP33  Parameters: Total weight≈ 105 ton Field integral at nominal current (1.25 KA)0.86 Tm Overall Dimension4.4 m x 4.0 m x 1.3 m (WxHxL) Coil Current (2 set of coils)1.25+2.5 KA Total power dissipation0.8+1.2= 2 MW Magnetic field≈ 0.36 T cooling15 bar, 4x7.5 m 3 /h

30. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG30 MNP 33 preliminary cost analysis Iron material  250 KEuro approximately [scaled from Jebens estimate] Coils (construction and assembly)**  300 KEuro [scaled from SigmaPhi estimate] copper conductor  130 KSfr (for about 8 ton of material) ancillary systems, controls  60 Ksfr resources and manpower  0.3 Tech. Eng x 2 years + 0.3 Phy. Or Eng. x 2 years AND 2 person x 1.5 years for installation * If the coils are done at CERN increase manpower by 1.5 and decrease coils cost by 200 KSfr ** GEC ALSTHOM offer in 1991 for only additional coils (but including conductor) was 3.5 MFF Total -> 1050 KSfr + manpower

31. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG31 MAMUD (M.Losasso, L.Di Lella, O.Yushchenko)  Design modified following many discussions  Performance evaluations have been done  Provisional cost estimate available Purpose: Provide pion – muon separation (muon veto) Bend the beam away from the small angle photon veto located at the end of the hall

32. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG32 beam LKr cryostat photon shower detected in LKr Liquid Krypton Hadronic calorimeter front face photon shower NOT detected in LKr beam pipe Need additional photon veto behind LKr and increase of beam pipe diameter Additional photon veto MAMUD: L.Di Lella

33. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG33 Criteria for the design of the hadronic calorimeter and muon veto  Integration with LKr calorimeter  Distinguish hadronic showers from electromagnetic showers  need longitudinal and lateral segmentation  Sensitivity to minimum ionizing particles (MIP)  Bending power ~  T x m  p T kick  .  GeV/c deflects  GeV/c beam by  mr (  cm lateral displacement at  m) An important background from K +   +   decay: “catastrophic” muon energy losses  muon bremsstrahlung  e + e  pair production  high Q 2  + e  scattering  muon decay in flight  deep inelastic muon – nucleon scattering  + + N   + + hadrons electromagnetic shower In all processes (except muon decay) the outgoing  +  has generally enough residual energy to be detected L.Dilella

34. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG34 O.Yushchenko:

35. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG35 O.Yushchenko:

36. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG36 MAMUD Detector Cost Estimate OPERA Proposal (CERN/SPSC 2000-028):   x  m  scintillator planes (  m  in total)  Each plane:  m long strips read out INDIVIDUALLY from both sides using  -channel multi-anode PMTs  Total number of strips  channel multi anode PMTs  Estimated cost (including fibres and PMTs): kCHF  Extrapolation to MAMUD (minimal configuration):   x  m  scintillator planes (  m  in total)  Each plane:   m long strips  Total number of strips  read out in groups of  by  cm diam. PMTs  Total number of  cm diam. PMTs =  Estimated cost  0.15 x OPERA  cost of iron and coils (not including 1040 channels of read-out electronics) “Optimal configuration”: two times more strips and PMT’s L.Di Lella 300 kCHF

37. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG37 Total weight≈ 150 ton Overall Dimension2.8 m x 2.6 m x 5.25 m (WxHxL) Number of iron plates(2x) 150 Coil Current≈ 2.7 KA Total power dissipation≈ 0.3 MW Field integral on axis (from -1 m to +6.2 m) 5.0 T m Magnetic field into a “good field region” (by 10 cm x 10 cm) ≈ 1.0 T MAMUD magnet parameters

38. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG38 Pole gap is 2x10 cm V x 30 cm H Coils cross section 10cm x 20cm

39. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG39 Main results of MAMUD simulation Magnetic field at magnet centre Field integral on axe - Packing factor is 0.54 10 cm

40. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG40 MaMuD magnet preliminary cost analysis Iron material  300KEuro approximately [Jebens estimate] Coils (construction and assembly)*  200 KEuro [SigmaPhi estimate, incremented for the cost of modified technology] Cu conductor  60 KSfr about [70 chf/m or 17.5 chf/Kg, Outokumpu estimate] ancillary systems, controls  50 KSfr resources and manpower  0.3 Tech. Eng x 2 years + 0.3 Phy. Or Eng. x 2 years AND 2 person x 1.5 years for installation If the coils are done at CERN increase manpower by 1.5 and decrease coils cost by 120 Ksfr Total is about 900 KSfr + manpower

41. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG41 A realistic timescale of the magnet project is something about 3 y. MaMuD project timescale

42. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG42 Summary MAMUD+MNP-33 magnets the cost and timescale of MaMuD and MNP33 magnets projects are comparable. a consistent saving (about 20%) can be attained if the construction is taken in charge by CERN. a realistic timescale means that starting on beginning of next year, the magnets cannot be commissioned before 2009. cost analysis done here is someway conservative, but does not include: Contingency, Power supply, Infrastructures, Electrical power, cooling.

43. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG43 Beam requests for 2006  An official request for beam time is necessary (SPSC!)  In view of limited available manpower in 2005, requests for beam installation work should be made a.s.a.p.  The new beam will not be available yet in 2006, but what about 2007?  Some suggestions for tests were made in Beam WG meeting: - Gigatracker tests for beam halo, different sensors, … - MAMUD mimicked by MBPL? Remove MUV&HAC?? - CEDAR tests with Cedar-W & N2 gas, new  -detectors - Beam interactions with rest gas in vacuum tank - Straw tubes prototype – probably premature? - Tests of Liquid Krypton as a veto

44. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG44 Final remarks Beam WG report At the first meeting we established a long list of topics to be addressed. Most of them have been addressed, although the main emphasis has been on  Finalising beam design and layout  Cedar validation and adaptation  MAMUD  Spectrometers  RICH justification, background rejection  Vacuum requirements

45. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG45 Initial list of items (1)  RF separated vs unseparated  Is 75 GeV still the right momentum  Intensity requirements  Small momentum spread  Large angular acceptance  Parallel section for CEDAR  Which gas in CEDAR (He, H2, …)H2  Rate capability of CEDAR  Do we need to remove electrons? NO  Beam spot at Giga tracker  Convergent neam towards tracker  Halo rate

46. 29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG46 Initial list of items (2)  Estimates, simulation for rates into veto counters X  Requirements on vacuum quality   Material budget for Giga trackers   Kevlar window and vacuum tube?  Straws  Integration of double MNP33 + MAMUD   Rectifier availability   T10 and LKr are fixed monuments  No ‘ H10’  Compatibility with neutral beam   Access to technical gallery with beam? X  Special requirements for beam control system?   Primary proton beam momentum, flat top   Compatibility with CNGS, COMPASS, LHC? 