1 / 27

m. apollonio

Beam-Line Analysis …. m. apollonio. 1. what a summer …. 335000 target dips into ISIS … 13000000 particle triggers 1500 runs 16 hours shift rotas MOMs BLOCs experts and to finish with … … fireworks at 10V ! VERY IMPORTANT: system was really stable, reliable

xavier-caldwell
Télécharger la présentation

m. apollonio

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. Beam-Line Analysis … m. apollonio CM27 - RAL 1

  2. what a summer … • 335000 target dips into ISIS … • 13000000 particle triggers • 1500 runs • 16 hours shift rotas • MOMs • BLOCs • experts • and to finish with … • … fireworks at 10V ! • VERY IMPORTANT: system was really stable, reliable • And it looks like data are in good shape CM27 - RAL 2

  3. The MICE Beam-Line CM27 - RAL

  4. TOF (0,1,2) TOF0 and 1 play a crucial role in this analysis (x0,y0) (x1,y1) M: transfer matrix • Infer x0’ and x1’ • from x0,x1 • Reconstruct: • P • phase space • Twiss Parameters • emittance CM27 - RAL

  5. OnLine Phase Space Reconstruction Beam Line Online Tuning Tried also an OL optimisation (very slow) CM27 - RAL

  6. Analysis • Commissioning and calibrating the beam line detectors • Luminosity Monitor • TOF0, 1, 2 / CKOVa, b • FermiLab Beam Profile Monitors • Commissioning the BL magnets • determine the (e,P) matrix • compare data to simulation • Beam rate vs Target Depth • Procedure: • data taking campaign at many different optics • mainly scan of quadrupoles/triplets to study the effect on ph-space • scan of DS • monitoring of main scalers / detectors (TOFs) • Use of Reference Runs to monitor optics stability • mu- / mu+ configurations CM27 - RAL

  7. DS scan [E. Chng, IC] • DS current reference at 669 Amps(run 2200) • DS current varied from -15% to +20% • TofTree and TofTrace ran on data to extract mean of x,y and the spread of the beam (σ) at TOF1 Ref. Current CM27 - RAL

  8. Beam Characterization [M. Rayner] • - Cumulative spectrum of Dt • Comparison Feb./Aug. TOF • Calibrations • - Change in shape due to TOF0 • Partially “blind” & BL dispersion • e-/e+ peak monitoring • position & width should be • stable CM27 - RAL

  9. Few points: • a shift in calibration (10 ps) between Feb. and Aug. • RMS nearly constant: 120 ps ≠ (60 ⊕ 50) • so we are not exploiting the full potential of TOFs resolution CM27 - RAL

  10. M.R. Feb. calibration Aug. calibration E.C. gauβ fit To e- peak E.C. Same pattern, shift of 0.5 ns due to wrong calib file used (debugging now) CM27 - RAL

  11. Beam Characterization [R.R.Fletcher] - Neutral Particles responsible for an apparent Trigger inefficiency BL+ with D2 ON BL+ with D2=0 CM27 - RAL

  12. Beam Characterization [A.Dobbs] • Adam had a chance at 10 V … and he did not miss it! • soon in a MICE-note CM27 - RAL

  13. Quadrupole Scan(s) [S. Blot] Q789 (- / +) and Q456 (+) I(triplet) = 050% to 175% of the nominal value See effect on beam profiles and phase space CM27 - RAL

  14. Q789 (-) G4BeamLine DATA CM27 - RAL

  15. CM27 - RAL

  16. CM27 - RAL

  17. CM27 - RAL

  18. Phase Space study for some Matrix Points MC (G4Beamline) DATA M0 10-240 CM27 - RAL

  19. MC (G4Beamline) DATA M1 10-240 CM27 - RAL

  20. DATA M0 6-240 G4Beamline P=[200,210] P=[200,210] ??? P=[210,220] P=[210,220] P=[220,230] P=[220,230] P=[230,240] P=[230,240] This result is in disagreement with what found previously … needs some investigation CM27 - RAL

  21. Many matrix points have been produced which need to be analysed In particular for (6,200) we have: M0 (starting optics) M1 (GA optimisation) M2 (Minuit Optimisation) CM27 - RAL

  22. A small army is fighting through the data • My apologies if I forgot some name) I am sure more want to be involved. • Good agreement DATA vs G4BeamLine (apart from the last result shown) • BUT still a lot of work • Many people involved in the analysis of these data • (MA, SB, CR, MR, EC, …) • We need • to analyze DATA and produce simulations for … 1500 runs ! • (surely less than that but quite a number) • TOF0-1 distance CRUCIAL for P and ph-space • reconstruction • - At present we could be wrong by 10-20 cm • TOF0,1 exact location? • survey in due course CM27 - RAL

  23. Homework for the 6 months to come • Complete the analysis of the JUL-AUG campaign • Understand how well we can predict the beamline • M. Littlefield is modeling the entire beamline in G4MICE • Interesting project: should help us understand TOF PH-SPACE • reconstruction CM27 - RAL

  24. The end CM27 - RAL

  25. STEP I • Commissioning and calibrating the beam line detectors • Luminosity Monitor • TOF0, 1, 2 / CKOVa, b • FermiLab Beam Profile Monitors • Commissioning the BL magnets • determine the (e,P) matrix • compare data to simulation CM27 - RAL 25

  26. Layout • Goals for STEP I • MICE Beam Line • detectors • DAQ • Beam Characterization • data taking campaign • Tracker for the next phase • Software CM27 - RAL 26

  27. Luminosity Monitor • Particle Rate close to Target point • PoT as function of Target Depth (independent from BLMs) • installed in the ISIS vault and commissioned • coincidence to reduce spurious counts • correlation LM vs BLM CM27 - RAL 27

More Related