1 / 6

UCN transport and NN experiments

UCN transport and NN experiments. R. Young and B. Wehring NCState University. The geometry:. How do we model transport?. Transport Data: Where Does It Come From?. Raw Data:. TOF – proton start, detector stop. LANSCE Prototype Source:. Modeling strategy, model date using fit parameters:

kiril
Télécharger la présentation

UCN transport and NN experiments

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. UCN transport and NN experiments R. Young and B. Wehring NCState University

  2. The geometry: How do we model transport?

  3. Transport Data: Where Does It Come From? Raw Data: TOF – proton start, detector stop LANSCE Prototype Source: • Modeling strategy, model date using fit parameters: • specularity (TOF very sensitive) • loss per bounce, shape of SD2 and UCN lifetime in SD2 (use “bottle lifetime between source and valve A) For lifetime: study thin films so mfp in SD2 not important

  4. Prototype Results Specularity: average probability that a reflection will be mirror-like Loss per bounce: average probability that UCN will be absorbed or upscattered during a collision • Specularity: 97.5% ( roughly 2% uncertainty) agrees with measurements of straight and curved guides we have performed at ILL • Loss per bounce: .0025 conservative, set by 58Ni bottle lifetimes and source data 58Ni/Mo coated guides (approx. 305 neV) PLD diamond coatings (250 - 300 neV, with 300 neV measured for at SPEAR) • Specularity: >99% (data obtained at ILL recently for drawn quartz tubes) • Loss per bounce < .00016 (data from ILL expts – negligible for our purposes)

  5. The Monte Carlo • Runge-Kutta numerical integration • Gravity, magnetic fields (if needed), and wall reflections • Non-specular reflections via various models (Gaussian, isotropic and Lambertian—(from Golub, Richardson, Lamoreaux) • Spin dynamics if needed (depolarization on surfaces and spin dynamics in rf fields) (future effort: n-n phase evolution) • Assume n annihilated on each collision

  6. Preliminary results for base case (det eff = 1): • A possible base case: NCState geometry, 4 cm thick SD2, 18 cm guides, .050s SD2 lifetime, a UCN energy cutoff of 430 neV initally Primary flux: 6.0 x 107 (below 305 neV) Box loading efficiency: 20 –32% Best case: diffuse walls, specular floor 3.5x10^9 discovery pot. 325 s avg. residency • Straightforward gains: Source thickness x2 (see Serebrov’s geom): x 2 Source lifetime  .075s +10% Running time: 4 years (“real”) • Speculative gains: Multiphonon: x1.5(?) Coherent amplification: x2 (?) Solid Oxygen: x5 (?)  5.5 – 7 x 109 Various diffuse regions, wall potentials, same “best” case as above

More Related