1 / 13

Insights from the Autumn 2011 MICE Project Board Updates: Performance and Calibration Overview

This document provides a comprehensive summary of the MICE (Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment) project board updates as of March 2012, detailing the performance and calibration of various detectors during the December 2011 ISIS User Run. Key highlights include the planning and execution of the run, calibration updates on timing resolutions of TOFs (Time of Flights), contamination analysis, and the collaborative efforts from the online group. The findings demonstrate successful data collection and identification efficiencies, emphasizing the learning outcomes from over 250 GB of collected data and setting the stage for future experiments.

joyce
Télécharger la présentation

Insights from the Autumn 2011 MICE Project Board Updates: Performance and Calibration Overview

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. Physics Program and Runs:Autumn 2011 & Step IV V. Blackmore MICE Project Board, 08/03/12

  2. 2/13 Dec 2011 Run • MICE recently ran during the December ISIS User Run • Planned and organised by Linda Coney (Online Group) and Yordan Karadzhov (MICE Operations Manager) • Dates set early 2011 • Run planning initiated 8th August • Ran 1st to 16th December • MICE needs to know: • What? • Where? • When? • Many detectors to do this • Upstream: TOF0, TOF1, CKOVs • Downstream: TOF2, KL, EMR • Must understand our detectors •  Calibration

  3. Identifying time & particle species depends on timing resolution of TOFs. TOF0: 55 ps TOF1: 60 ps TOF2: 50 ps New calibration: TOF0: 55 ps TOF1: 53 ps TOF2: 50 ps 3/13 Dec 2011: TOF Performance rebuilt Yordan Karadzov, Durga Rajaram

  4. 70 ps difference in electron/positron time of flight Not a path length difference Create 5 x more positive than negative particles Increased rate  overworked PMTs respond more slowly 4/13 Dec 2011: e+/e- Time of Flight Yordan Karadzov, John Cobb

  5. (Simplistic) simulation ofp-contamination in m-beam 1-5% Better to make a direct measurement Use KL p hadronic interactions m  no hadronic interactions Calibrate method using a “p”-beam Train using p and m with same time of flight in -beams of suitable momenta. 5/13 Dec 2011: p-Contamination

  6. Found that p make up less than 1 – 2 % of our m-beam Further analysis needed to understand systematic errors and improve precision Maryian Bogomilov, Yordan Karadzov, Domizia Orestano » 100% m » 0% p 6/13 Dec 2011: p-Contamination 1. Template of KL pulse height in p-beam 2. Apply to m-beam  

  7. CKOV count vs. TOF for a low momentum p-beam >40 photoelectrons per electron transit 1 – 2 photoelectrons per p/m transit Good separation identifying particles Analysis underway Next: high momentum beams! 7/13 Dec 2011: Cherenkov Studies p m e Lucien Cremaldi, Gene Kafka

  8. 8/13 Dec 2011: Summary • Excellent organisation = efficient run • Online reconstruction available made the run very successful • Lots learnt from >250 GB of data taken (~50 m/s) • Calibrations, rate effects, contamination… • More to learn upon further analysis Linda Coney, Online Group

  9. Step IV physics objectives and running discussed during CMs and analysis meetings Current understanding of desired measurements given here Not a definitive run plan Exhaustive list of measurements in MPB report 9/13 Step IV: Run Plan

  10. 10/13 Steps II and III in Step IV 100’000 m / 2 hours 4. Understand beam line matching, generate correct emittance beams  1 week 2. Check magnet performance and alignment  1 week 3. Check forces between coils  2 days  ramp up system! 1. Commission & calibrate detectors, check alignment  1 week

  11. Understanding MICE optics; momentum acceptance, aperture Empty channel, baseline beam settings Momentum scans Different b-functions Different e Different field configurations. Then compare with simulations! Time consuming, but necessary 3 momenta, 3 emittances, 2 field configurations, 4 b-functions, 72 measurements Approximately 140 hours (for 100k m) + time to change beam settings Finally, exercise the cooling formula! 11/13 Step IV

  12. 12/13 Step IV • First demonstration of m cooling in MICE • Liquid H or LiH disc • 3 momenta, 3 emittances, 4 b-functions, 2 field configurations = 72 measurements • Then move to other solid absorbers • Al, C • Verify material dependence • Measure multiple scattering, energy loss, cooling • Finally investigate wedge absorbers • Study beam dispersion, emittance exchange Wedge absorber

  13. July, 2013 October, 2013 13/13 Step IV: Timeline ISIS User Runs: Feb – March 2013 • Commission and calibrate detectors, check alignment • Magnet performance and alignment • Diffuser and beam matching • Empty channel measurements May 2013 • First demonstration of cooling • Empty absorber, Liquid Hydrogen absorber • Full set of measurements • Cooling measurements with LiH solid absorber • Verification of cooling formula with different solid absorbers • Multiple scattering, energy loss November, 2013 • Wedge and half-wedge absorbers

More Related