1 / 32

Speculative first look at neutron detection by (n,p) charge exchange in the central detector

Speculative first look at neutron detection by (n,p) charge exchange in the central detector. Dan Watts – University of Edinburgh. Neutron detector/polarimeter: CB at MAMI. C x. MAID. Scatter point (and therefore q n ) extrapolated from MWPC track. C x. p( g,p 0 )p E g =650 MeV.

zavad
Télécharger la présentation

Speculative first look at neutron detection by (n,p) charge exchange in the central detector

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Speculative first look at neutron detection by (n,p) charge exchange in the central detector Dan Watts – University of Edinburgh

  2. Neutron detector/polarimeter: CB at MAMI Cx MAID • Scatter point (and therefore qn) • extrapolated from MWPC track. Cx p(g,p0)p Eg=650 MeV SAID MAID p(g,h)p qCM=12015 SAID Photon energy (MeV) D. Watts et. al., Chin. Phys. C 33:1183 (2009)

  3. (n,p) in CLAS12 ?? • Central detector - excellent proton detection capabilities (micromegas/SVT) • Convert a fraction of neutron flux to protons - utilise existing detectors • for neutron detection? Simple G4 simulation to take first look: Convertor material Neutrons T=200 MeV 100k thrown

  4. 12C conversion prob. ~2.3% with 2cm G4 simulation: 100k incident neutrons 12C conversion prob. ~4% with 4cm Proton energy (MeV) PbWO4 conversion prob. ~2.2% per 2cm PbWO4 conversion prob. ~2.2% with 2cm 56Fe conversion prob. ~3% with 2cm 56Fe conversion prob. ~3% per 2cm Proton energy (MeV) Proton energy (MeV)

  5. Convertor placement options - outside Convertor placement “options” Would need convertor and tracker in limited space → Not favourable!

  6. Convertor placement options - inside • Micromegas : ~4cm thick 12C before first MM cylinder (or replace 1st cylinder?) • SVT : additional convertor material between detector planes? • Large acceptance neutron/proton • polarimeter for free?

  7. Summary • Convertor could be a feasible fall back option for • neutron detection • Potential to add neutron (and proton) polarimetry to the suite • of possibilities with CLAS12 • Of course - many issues still to address..!

  8. Detrimental side-effects of scatterer material • To hit polarimeter TN>100 MeV in g(p,p)N above the D • Proton energy loss <10 MeV for Tp>100 MeV. • Multiple scattering <1o FWHM for Tp>100 MeV • 0.37 radiation lengths g conversion ~ 30% Tp after graphite Energy loss Tp exit proton (MeV) Tp incident proton (MeV) Coulomb scattering FWHM scattering angle (deg) Proton energy (MeV)

  9. Convertor placement “options” - inside • In micromegas array - replace inner cylinder with ~4cm cylinder of graphite? • Additional convertor material between Si detectors (~4cm gap)? • Large acceptance neutron/proton polarimeter for free?

  10. Central Tracker CTOF CND Convertor option for neutron detector/polarimeter

  11. The neutron counter for the Central Detector of CLAS12 CLAS12 Workshop, Genova, 2/27/08 S. Niccolai, IPN Orsay

  12. INFN Frascati, INFN Genova, IPN Orsay, LPSC Grenoble, SPhN Saclay, University of Glasgow • GPDs and nDVCS • Neutron kinematics for nDVCS • Central Neutron Detector for CLAS12 • Simulations: expected performances of CND • Ongoing and planned R&D: SiPM, APDs, MCP-PMTs The neutron counter for the Central Detector of CLAS12 CLAS12 Workshop, Genova, 2/27/08 S. Niccolai, IPN Orsay

  13. SVT BST

  14. JJ-Slice

  15. BST Support / Cooling Fixture • Downstream Side • Upstream Side • Internal Cooling Channel

  16. ~ e t g H, H, E, E (x,ξ,t) gL* (Q2) x+ξ x-ξ ~ ~ Axial-Vector:H (x,ξ,t) Pseudoscalar:E (x,ξ,t) ~ H(x,0,0) = q(x) H(x,0,0) = Δq(x) ~ [ ] 1 1 1 ò = - JG = x + x q q q J xdx H ( x , , 0 ) E ( x , , 0 ) 2 2 - 1 Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering and GPDs • Q2= - (e-e’)2 • xB = Q2/2Mn n=Ee-Ee’ • x+ξ, x-ξ longitudinal momentum fractions • t = (p-p’)2 • x  xB/(2-xB) e’ conserve nucleon helicity p’ p Vector:H (x,ξ,t) Tensor:E (x,ξ,t) « Handbag » factorization valid in the Bjorken regime: high Q2 ,  (fixed xB), t<<Q2 flip nucleon helicity Quark angular momentum (Ji’s sum rule) «3D» quark/gluon image of the nucleon X. Ji, Phy.Rev.Lett.78,610(1997)

  17. Extracting GPDs from DVCS spin observables Ds 2s s+ - s- s+ + s- g A = = f e’ e leptonic plane p’ hadronic plane x= xB/(2-xB) k=-t/4M2 Polarized beam, unpolarized proton target: ~ ~ DsLU~ sinfIm{F1H+ x(F1+F2)H +kF2E}df Hp, Hp, Ep Kinematically suppressed ~ Unpolarized beam, longitudinalproton target: ~ Hp, Hp DsUL ~ sinfIm{F1H+x(F1+F2)(H+ … }df Unpolarized beam, transverseproton target: Hp, Ep DsUT~ sinfIm{k(F2H – F1E) + …..}df Polarized beam, unpolarized neutron target: ~ ~ Hn, Hn, En DsLU~ sinfIm{F1H+ x(F1+F2)H - kF2E}df Suppressed because F1(t) is small nDVCS gives access to E, the leastknownand leastconstrainedGPD that appears in Ji’s sum rule Suppressed because of cancellation between PPD’s of u and d quarks Hp(ξ, ξ, t) = 4/9 Hu(ξ, ξ, t) + 1/9 Hd(ξ, ξ, t) Hn(ξ, ξ, t) = 1/9 Hu(ξ, ξ, t) + 4/9 Hd(ξ, ξ, t)

  18. Beam-spin asymmetry for DVCS: sensitivity to Ju,d DVCS on the proton Ju=.3, Jd=.1 Ju=.8, Jd=.1 Ju=.5, Jd=.1 Ju=.3, Jd=.8 Ju=.3, Jd=-.5 f= 60° xB = 0.2 Q2 = 2 GeV2 t = -0.2 GeV2 Ee = 11 GeV VGG Model (calculations by M. Guidal)

  19. Beam-spin asymmetry for DVCS: sensitivity to Ju,d DVCS on the neutron Ju=.3, Jd=.1 Ju=.8, Jd=.1 Ju=.5, Jd=.1 Ju=.3, Jd=.8 Ju=.3, Jd=-.5 f= 60° xB = 0.17 Q2 = 2 GeV2 t = -0.4 GeV2 • The asymmetry for nDVCS is: • very sensitive to Ju, Jd • can be as big as for the proton • depending on the kinematics and on Ju, Jd • → wide coverage needed Ee = 11 GeV VGG Model (calculations by M. Guidal)

  20. First measurement of nDVCS: Hall A M. Mazouz et al., PRL 99 (2007) 242501 Ee= 5.75 GeV/c Pe = 75 % L = 4 ·1037 cm-2· s-1/nucleon e’ HRS e LH2 / LD2 target  ElectromagneticCalorimeter (PbF2) Analysis done in the impulse approximation: Active nucleon identified via missing mass Q2 = 1.9 GeV2 xB = 0.36 0.1 GeV2 < -t < 0.5 GeV2 Twist-2 Subtraction ofquasi-elasticproton contribution deduced from H2 data convoluted with initial motion of the nucleon

  21. nDVCS in Hall A: results M. Mazouz et al., PRL 99 (2007) 242501 Q2 = 1.9 GeV2 - xB = 0.36 F. Cano, B. Pire, Eur. Phys. J. A19 (2004) 423 Model dependent extraction of Ju and Jd S. Ahmad et al., PR D75 (2007) 094003 VGG, PR D60 (1999) 094017 Im(CIn) compatible with zero (→ too high xB?) Strongcorrelationbetween Im[CId] and Im[CIn] Big statistical and systematicuncertainties (mostly coming from H2 and p0 subtraction)

  22. nDVCS with CLAS12: kinematics Physics and CLAS12 acceptance cuts applied: W> 2 GeV2, Q2 >1 GeV2,–t < 1.2 GeV2 5° < qe < 40°, 5° < qg < 40° DVCS/Bethe-Heitler event generator with Fermi motion, Ee = 11 GeV (Grenoble) <pn>~ 0.4 GeV/c More than 80% of the neutrons have q>40° → Neutron detector in the CD is needed! Detected in forward CLAS Not detected ed→e’ng(p) Detected in FEC, IC PID (n or g?) + angles to identify the final state CD pμe + pμn + pμp = pμe′ + pμn′ + pμp′ + pμg In the hypothesis of absence of FSI: pμp = pμp’ → kinematics are complete detecting e’, n (p,q,f), g FSI effects can be estimated measuring eng, epg, edg on deuteron in CLAS12 (same experiment)

  23. Central Tracker CTOF CND CND: constraints & design • limited space available (~10 cm thickness) • limited neutron detection efficiency • no space for light guides • compact readout needed • strong magnetic field • magnetic field insensitive photodetectors (SiPMs or Micro-channel plate PMTs) • CTOF can also be used for neutron detection • Central Tracker can work as a vetofor charged particles MC simulations underway for: • efficiency • PID • angular resolutions • reconstruction algorithms • background studies Detector design under study: scintillator barrel

  24. Simulation of the CND • Geometry: • Simulation done with Gemc (GEANT4) • Includes the full CD • 4 radial layers (each 2.4 cm thick) • 30 azimuthal layers (to be optimized) • each bar is a trapezoid (matches CTOF) • inner r = 28.5 cm, outer R = 38.1 cm y x z Reconstruction: • Good hit: first with Edep > threshold • TOF = (t1+t2)/2, with t2(1) = tofGEANT+ tsmear+ (l/2 ± z)/veff • tsmear = Gaussian with s= s0/√Edep (MeV) • s0 = 200 ps·MeV ½ (~2 times worse than • what obtained from KNU’s TOF measurement) • β = L/T·c, L = √h2+z2 , h = distance between vertex and hit position, assuming it at mid-layer • θ = acos (z/L), z = ½ veff (t1-t2) • Birks effect not included (should be added in Gemc) • Cut on TOF>5ns to remove events produced in the magnet and rescattering back in the CND

  25. Layer 2 Layer 1 Layer 3 Layer 4 CND: efficiency, PID, resolution Efficiency ~ 10-16% for a threshold of 5 MeV and pn = 0.2 - 1 GeV/c Efficiency: Nrec/Ngen Nrec= # events with Edep>Ethr. pn= 0.1 - 1.0 GeV/c q = 50°-90°, f = 0° “Spectator” cut Dp/p ~ 5% Dq ~ 1.5° • b distributions (for each layer) for: • neutrons with pn = 0.4 GeV/c • neutrons with pn = 0.6 GeV/c • neutrons with pn = 1 GeV/c • photons with E = 1 GeV/c • (assuming equal yields for n and g) n/g misidentification for pn≥ 1 GeV/c

  26. nDVCS with CLAS12 + CND: expected count rates N = ∆t ∆Q2 ∆x ∆f L Time Racc Eeff • L = 1035cm-2s-1 • Time = 80 days • Racc= bin-by-bin acceptance • Eeff = 15% neutron detector efficiency (CND+CTOF+FD) <t> ≈ -0.4 GeV2 <Q2> ≈ 2GeV2 <x> ≈ 0.17 Dt = 0.2 GeV2DQ2 =0.55 GeV2 DxB = 0.05 Df = 30° Count rates computed with nDVCS+BH event generator + CLAS12 acceptance (LPSC Grenoble) → DN = 1%- 5%

  27. Electromagnetic background • Electromagnetic background rates and spectra for the • CND have been studied with Gemc (R. De Vita): • The background on the CND produced by the beam • through electromagnetic interaction in the target • consists of neutrals (most likely photons) • Total rate ~2 GHz at luminosity of 1035cm-2·s-1 • Maximum rate on a single paddle ~ 22 MHz • (1.5 MHz for Edep>100KeV) • This background can be reconstructed as a neutron: • with a 5 MeV energy threshold the rate is ~ 3 KHz • For these “fake” neutrons b<0.1-0.2 → pn < 0.2 GeV/c • The actual contamination will depend on the • hadronic rate in the forward part of CLAS12 • (at 1 KHz, the rate of fake events is 0.4 Hz) b, for Edep>5 MeV

  28. SiPM - CONS: • Very small active surface (1-3 mm2) • → small amount of light collected (sTOF~1/√Nphel) • Noise Technical challenge: TOF resolution & B=5T SiPM • SiPM - PROS: • Insensitive to magnetic field • High gain (106) • Good intrinsic timing resolution (30 ps/pixel) • Good single photoelectron resolution MCP-PMT • APD – PROS: • insensitive to magnetic field • bigger surface than SiPM → more light collected • APD – CONS: • low gain at room temperature • timing resolution? • MCP-PMT – PROS: • resistant to magnetic field ~1T • big surface • timing resolution ~ordinary PMT • MCP-PMT – CONS: • behavior at 5T not yet studied • high cost (10K euros/PMT)

  29. Tests on photodetectors with cosmic rays at Orsay “Trigger” PMTs (Photonis XP2020) “Reference PMT” Photonis XP20D0 Scintillator bar (BC408) 80cm x 4 cm x 3 cm “Trigger” scintillators (BC408) 1cm thick • Plan: • Measure TOF resolution with 2 standard PMTs • Substitute PMT at one end with one SiPM, one APD • Try with a matrix of SiPMs • Redo the same measurements with extruded scintillator (FNAL) + WLS fiber (Kuraray) + SiPM (Stepan’s idea, used in IC hodoscope, ~ x5 more γ’s/mm2) • Test of mchannel PMTs (collaboration with Glasgow)

  30. Single pe Preliminary results from Orsay’s test bench σ2test =1/2 (σ2test,trig + σ2test,ref − σ2ref,trig − 4σ2x/c2s) σ2ref =1/2(σ2test,ref + σ2ref,trig − σ2test,trig − 4σ2x/c2s) σ2trig =1/2(σ2ref,trig + σ2test,trig − σ2test,ref + 2σ2x/c2s) Test Ref Trig Double pe • Next steps: • Complete measurement of 3×3 mm2 MPPC • Try 5×5 mm2 APDs • Extruded scintillator + WLS fibers + SiPM • Matrix of SiPM (cost?) • Glasgow: in-field tests (5T) for MCP-PMT • test = 1 SiPM Hamamatsu MPPC 1x1 mm2: • sTOF ~ 1.8 ns (~consistent with expectation) • rise time ~ 1 ns • nphe ~1 • test = 1 SiPM Hamamatsu MPPC 3x3mm2: • rise time ~5 ns (increased capacitance) • more noise than 1x1 mm2, work in progress to get sTOF… • test = PMT: • sTOF < 90 ps • nphe ~1600 • test = 1 APD Hamamatsu 10x10 mm2 + IC preamp: • sTOF ~ 1.4 ns • high noise, high rise time Thanks toT. Nguyen Trung, B. Genolini and J. Pouthas (IPN Orsay)

  31. Conclusions and outlook • nDVCS is a key reaction for the GPD experimental program: measuring its beam-spin asymmetry can give access to E and therefore to the quark orbital angular momentum • (via the Ji’s sum rule) • A large kinematical coverage is necessary to sample the phase-space, as the BSA is expected to vary strongly • The detection of the recoil neutron is very important to ensure exclusivity, reduce • background and keep systematic uncertainties under control • The nDVCS recoil neutrons are mostly going at large angles (qn>40°), therefore a • neutron detector should be added to the Central Detector, using the (little) available space LoI submitted to PAC34, encouraged to submit full proposal Are you interested in detecting neutrons at large angles and p<1 GeV/c? Are you interested in the photodetectors studies (useful for CTOF too)? → You are more than welcome to join in! • CTOFand neutron detector could coexist in one detector, whose first layer can be used • as TOF for charged particles when there’s a track in the central tracker, while the full • system can be used as neutron detector when there are no tracks in the tracker. • Using scintillator as detector material, detection of nDVCS recoil neutrons with • ~10-15% of efficiency and n/g separation for p < 1 GeV/c seems possible from simulations, • provided to have ~120 ps of TOF resolution, • The strong magnetic field of the CD and the limited space available call for magnetic-field • insensitive and compact photodetectors: SiPM are a good candidate, but their timing • performances need to be tested • Tests on timing with SiPM and APDs in cosmic rays are underway at Orsay • Ongoing tests for MCP-PMTs in magnetic field at Glasgow University

More Related