1 / 26

MICE

n. MICE COLABORATION MEETING BERKELEY: ASSEMBLING THE PROPOSAL. p. m. MICE. preliminary logo. THE JOINT CLRC/PPARC PANEL TO REVIEW THE MICE PROPOSAL REPORT OF THE 1 ST PANEL MEETING, HELD ON 25 MARCH 2002. Summary

kamana
Télécharger la présentation

MICE

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. n MICE COLABORATION MEETING BERKELEY: ASSEMBLING THE PROPOSAL p m MICE preliminary logo

  2. THE JOINT CLRC/PPARC PANEL TO REVIEW THE MICE PROPOSAL REPORT OF THE 1ST PANEL MEETING, HELD ON 25 MARCH 2002. Summary 1. The MICE (Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment) as presented represents a research and development project to develop an intense source of neutrinos for a future neutrino factory. It is a technical and engineering project more so than an exploratory piece of basic science. Nonetheless it represents accelerator technology at the leading edge, and without results from an enterprise like MICE, it would be difficult in the future to present a credible proposal for a neutrino factory with predictable performance and realistic cost estimates.

  3. 2. The proponents are encouraged to write a full proposal with technical help from RAL who would act as the host laboratory for MICE. The proposal, along the guidelines required by the PPARC Project Peer Review Panel, should address the layout and integration of the experimental facility and cover all safety aspects. The financial, technical and experimental needs should be clearly spelled out along with their probable and realistic solutions. 3. It is important that the proposal can indicate strong UK university involvement of dedicated physicists. The committee was told that even though the HEP community in the UK had indicated a priority for a linear collider as the next global project, there remained a group (~ 20%) with a stated preference for a neutrino factory as the next step. It is therefore anticipated that this group will represent the main signatories of the proposal.

  4. 4. The proposal should not address the scientific case for a neutrino factory, but rather concentrate on explaining how the technical and financial uncertainties can be reduced in a future proposal for a neutrino factory, by performing MICE at RAL. It should also attempt to answer the question as to why the proponents believe that the timescale for MICE is immediate. 5. At the stage of producing a proposal the risks to the CLRC are rather small and appear manageable. However the proposal must cover future demands on the laboratory especially the potential impact on the ISIS group and ISIS operations. Should an eventual proposal be successfully reviewed, RAL will become a significant player internationally as the host laboratory for the MICE project. The world needs only one MICE!

  5. Conclusion The Review Panel endorses the collaboration’s request for technical help from the host laboratory in preparation of a proposal to define the layout and integration of this experimental facility and to study the safety issues related to hydrogen absorbers, intense magnetic and RF fields. The Panel reserves the right to examine this proposal, its value for research, its timing and its implications for the domestic programme. questions: What will MICE be? Who will do what? Who will pay what? When can/should this be done?

  6. MICE Video Conferences and collaboration meetings MUCOOL/MICE Collaboration meeting 22-26 October @Berkeley Finalize who does what and cost estimates Schedule remaining open questions (decision tree) at that time the input to the proposal should be defined and proposal drafting underway. Date of submission: 15 December 2002 Deadline for contributions 15 November 2002 dates for SG meeting 23 dates for video conferences -> steering group meeting I.e. 24 afternoon collaboration board meeting Friday morning 7H30 NEXT Collaboration meeting: 27-29 March 2003 Geneva (CERN or Uni)

  7. PRIORITIES (status as of RAL coll.meeting) • Find a home for the experiment • Understand the X ray issue and quantify it in terms of • particle detector performance • 2.’ Develop reconstruction with noise and efficiencies • 3. Choose detectors • 3’. Finalize parameters • 4. Establish technical specs and cost estimates • 4’ Distribute contributions and begin fund hunt mission • 5. Write proposal DONE getting there, BRAVO! Crisis… no, but define set of criteria, actions and decision points pending questions on magnet match, beam sizes, absorber design, safety measures

  8. => 6.70 MV/m => 4.65 MV/m .43 X 4 cells = 1.7 m  11.5 MV for 1X 4 = 6.70 MV/m 16 MV for 2X4 = 4.65 MV/m 16 MV for 1X4 = 9.3 MV/m

  9. SIMULATIONS Simulation of performance of cooling cell fairly well understood. Now needed : … simulation of detector response, for design of e.g. downstream PID or to understand performance of Sci-Fi or TPG and first go at some systematics----- … groundwork by Janot needs to be extended … large organized effort started in August 2002 much exists, some results will already be with us keep going! conceptual thinking of systematic uncertainties in the measurement needed  magnetic field quality / measurements  noise and efficiencies in trackers  absorber thickness  etc…

  10. Proposed grand time line: 2001 Expose detectors to RF radiation (potential show stopper) write first description of experiment with two options US design (200 MHz) or CERN design (88 MHz) US simulate CERN scheme [and vice versa if possible] Evaluate availability and cost of main cost drivers: RF cavities / amplifiers/ power supplies/solenoids for each scheme evaluate beams + host labs 1st workshop 25-27 October 2001, CERN ! 16 Nov. 2001 ! Chose technology + host lab, write + submit LETTER OF INTENT (that was 28 Nov 2001) 25 March 2002 CLRC review June 2002 CLRC + PPARC invite submission of proposal 15/12/2002 Proposal submission end 2004 1st beam (debugging of spectrometers) end 2006 demonstrate ionization cooling after that … … more systematic studies

  11. MICE : WHEN? GOAL: The long-term goal is to have a Conceptual Design Report for a Neutrino Factory Complex by the time of JHF and LHC start-up, so that, by that date, this would be a valid option for the future of HEP (European Muon Coordination and Oversight Group, April 2002) =2007 MICE must have measured cooling end 2006

  12. P.Drumm

  13. RAL experiment layout (P. Drumm)

  14. First go at very incomplete tables of who does what Will be updated during meeting

  15. First go at very incomplete tables of who does what global supervision of coils necessary (Green) among Oxford/ MUCOOL/ RAL/ LBL/ Saclay/ INFN 1.6 Suggestion: Mike Green will organize a get-together of those who could bid for the magnets and share (at least the cost, maybe construction) and come up with a proposal.

  16. First go at very incomplete tables of who does what common funds ?

  17. First go at very incomplete tables of who does what to be shared point was made that slow control and online reconstruction should be addressed

  18. draft Proposal for MICE proposal Layout overall edition: Blondel & Kaplan • Executive Summary 1 page • table of contents 1 page • full author list -------!!!!!! 2 pages • responsibility structure 1 page • General motivation (S.Geer & K. Long) • 1.1 Neutrinos and our lives (PR motivation) • 1.2 Neutrino oscillations and the role of NuFact (Particle physics motivation) • 1.3 other physics at NuFact complex and Muon collider • 1.4 Neutrino Factory description (the accelerator) • 1.5 Role of cooling in Neutrino Factory and muon collider, • the need for MICE (Acc. physics motivation) 6 pages • 2. Cooling (Kaplan) • 2.1 principle of Ionization cooling • 2.2 cooling channel design • 2.3 possible extensions (gas cooling and ring coolers) 5 pages • 3. The International Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment (Blondel, Hanke, Palmer) • 3.1 Layout and principle • 3.2 Experiments to be performed • 3.3 Expected performance and statistical precision • 3.4 Systematic errors and resulting requirements • 3.5 possible development of the experiment in time 8 pages

  19. draft Proposal for MICE proposal Layout (ctd) 4. The magnetic channel (Green/Rey) 4.1 layout and optics (Palmer / Fernow) 4.2 design of coils (Green/Rey) 4.3 services (->move to infrastructure chapter 10) 4.4 magnetic measurements (Rey) 4.5 return flux and constraints 8 pages 4.6 responsibilities cost and time line 5. The RF system (Li, Haseroth) 5.1 Cavities 5.2 Windows 5.3 Power supplies 5.4 achievable performance 8 pages 5.6 services and safety (->move to infrastructure chapter 10) 5.5 responsibilities, cost and time-line 6. The absorbers (Cummings/Ishimoto) 6.1 general design (incl. safety constraints) 6.2 windows 6.3 thermodynamics (heat exchanger, etc..) 6.4 accommodating different length and materials 6.6 responsibilities, cost and time-line 8 pages

  20. draft Proposal for MICE proposal Layout (ctd) 7.Beam and beam line (Drumm) 7.1 layout and location 7.2 expected performance and time structure 7.3 time line 6 pages 8. Detectors (Bross/Palladino) 8.1 overall description, functionality and redundancy 8.2 TOF and trigger 8.3.1 tracking device (option I) Scintillating fiber tracker 8.3.2 tracking devices (option II) TPG 8.4 Particle ID 8.5 DAQ, on-line monitoring and reconstruction in each section : responsibilities, costs and time line 15 pages 9. RF radiation on detectors (Norem/McKigney) 9.1 general understanding and characteristics 9.2 measurement results and effect on detectors 9.3 projected effect on performance of MICE (with help of simulation team) 9.4 further measurements to come 6 pages

  21. draft Proposal for MICE proposal Layout (ctd) 10. implementation of MICE at RAL (Ivaniouchenkov, Black) 10.1 Hall layout 10.2 services, cryogenics etc… 10.3 safety issues 10.4 interference with ISIS 10.5 installation plan, time-line, costs and requirements 6 pages 11. Summary of responsibilities, costs, funding and grand time line (Zisman, Edgecock) 6 pages 12. Summary and requirements from RAL 3 pages references appendices (if needed) 92 pages…..

  22. from sg meeting in July: Steering group membership: I. Ivaniouchenkov is added as the project engineer. Y. Torun will be invited as webmaster/secretary (and has agreed to generating minutes to be archived on the web and made public following review by the steering group) Technical group conveners: Concept development: A. Lombardi, R. Palmer. This includes cooling optics and general configuration issues Experiment simulations:M. G. Catanesi, Y. Torun. Includes simulation, reconstruction and general software issues Absorbers:M. A. Cummings, S. Ishimoto -- no change RF cavities and power supplies:D. Li, H. Haseroth + (C. Church) Magnet systems: M. Green, J. M. Rey -- no change Detectors: A. Bross, V. Palladino -- no change Beamline:P. Drumm only RF radiation:E. McKigney, J. Norem -- no change Engineering integration: E. Black, I. Ivaniouchenkov. This is a new working group on technical specifications, service needs, safety issues and installation.

More Related