1 / 22

FP6 Design Studies

FP6 Design Studies. ESGARD meeting 3 rd September – from Roy Aleksan. Originally: 3 DS calls, November 2003 , 2004, 2005 Now: 0 Two reasons: - want to fund additional projects from round 1 70MEUR  90MEUR - big budget reduction (next I3: 60M  140M) Left 30-40MEUR for round 2

brundage
Download Presentation

FP6 Design Studies

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. FP6 Design Studies ESGARD meeting 3rd September – from Roy Aleksan • Originally: 3 DS calls, November 2003, 2004, 2005 • Now: 0 • Two reasons: - want to fund additional projects from round 1 70MEUR  90MEUR - big budget reduction (next I3: 60M  140M) • Left 30-40MEUR for round 2 • Decided: it isn’t worth holding another DS for this! • Possibility had been known for some time • RA asked Brussels if new JRA in CARE possible Answer: No!

  2. FP6 Design Study

  3. Possibilities • Wait until FP7: call 2006, 2007, …….. • Submit Neutrino Factory I3: - call 4th November - 140MEUR - RA, DP: no chance for accelerator R&D proposal • Do what we can with individual WPs: - Neutrino detector I3 - Non-scaling FFAG PoP NEST - Others?

  4. Possibilities Detector R&D I3 • CARE is accelerator R&D I3 • Detector R&D/Neutrino I3 is also possible! • In ESGARD: - Neutrino detectors - LHC upgrade - linear collider • Seems too complex & impossible to organise in time • Candidates should contact Roy! • Is a Neutrino Detector R&D I3 possible?

  5. Others……… • Targets and collector would work as 1 or 2 JRAs • Need to be part of an I3! • Could they be part of a Neutrino Detector I3???  Upgraded CERN Neutrino Facility I3??? • Would need careful wording, but might work? • MICE: could make a JRA from components: - RF with windows/foils - RF in magnetic fields • But where? • Another possibility: high Tc SC focus coils NEST - not MICE - probably already funded • Design and engineering FS: - no idea!!!

  6. So, what to do? In my (very humble) opinion, we should…….. • Prepare a non-scaling electron FFAG NEST Adventure - check when/if next call • Investigate urgently Detector/Neutrino Facility I3 - include target/collector JRAs - who will do this?

  7. Realization of this possibility was made only in DESY in Nov. 2004 Time was short (4 mo) Getting lab managements on board took 2 months.The remaining 2 months were really too short! Timing was somewhat too early (MICE still in approval process, Only recommandations made to CERN about study, no action yet at management level) A number of ‘legal’ issues do appear in the writing process

  8. from to Design Study A European Integrated Infrastructure Initiative for Long Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Physics What did we achieve?

  9. Proposed structure Access to Research Infrastructures TA Networking activities (NA) Joint research activities JRA The 3 activities are mandatory for an I3 We were advised to submit a modest proposal Between 5-7 M€ total. The duration of projects should be 3 years. The focus should be BEAM AND EXPERIMENTS

  10. NA1. project management OK

  11. NA2. Extension of BENE to new groups Here I think we should try to investigate if this would be possible anyhow (Polish and Bulgarian groups in particular) would have been OK

  12. Joint Research Activities: JRA1: target and collection systems Lettry and Efthymiopoulos (CERN) proposed a nice set of activities (Tests of solid and liquid targets, Horn PS, TTA2?) collaboration with Polish group. (but: RAL, PSI?) JRA2: Muon beam at RAL Bradshaw proposed a MICE based activity (spectrometer solenoid, detectors, manpower, international collab.) OK

  13. JRA3 Detector development for neutrino experiments Paolo Strolin We have identified four main fields of research on detectors that can bedeveloped and improved in the future. 1. Large area or high sensitivity economical photon detectors 2. Large volume liquid argon detector possibly in magnetic field 3. Large magnetic detectors 4. Emulsion detectors Photo-detectors: proposal by Saclay (Mosca et al) issue raised: EU collaborators? Inclusion of Photonis, a private company. Magnetic detectors Ragazzi (ex monolith) proposed to supervise design a 40kton mag detector. Liquid Argon. Obviously. But deadline was too close (A. Rubbia) Activity on emlsions or similar was not identified MUST CONTINUE and EXPAND

  14. JRA4: Tools for analysis of neutrino oscillation experiments. group was identified but did not materialize. Steve King Eligio Lisi, Mezzetto, Donini, Rigolin, Hernandez, Gomez-Cadenas… Migliozzi, Lindner

  15. Access to Research Infrastructures ARI 1: Access to CERN for targets and collectors studies, as well as access to test beams for detector developments. Will be prepared together with JRA1 was not prepared ARI 2: Access to RAL for muon beam (MICE and low energy test beam for detector developments) Will be prepared together with JRA2 Peter Norton put together a preliminary document. ARI3 access to INFN infrastructures.

  16. Possibilities • Wait until FP7: call 2006, 2007, …….. • Submit Neutrino Factory I3: - call 4th November - 140MEUR - RA, DP: no chance for accelerator R&D proposal • Do what we can with individual WPs: - Neutrino detector I3 - Non-scaling FFAG PoP NEST - Others? but do not wait… start from where we are and move forward.

  17. Towards aNeutrino Factory scoping study The original plan from EMCOG was that RAL would be the mother house of the superbeam/NF DS. Ken Long received a letter from John wood to this effect.

  18. Background: • Intellectual: • Feasibility studies: • US: I, II, Ia • EU: CERN ‘yellow report’ • JP: Design report • Need inter-regional cooperation for ‘Study III’ • Recognised at NuFct03 • Social: • Essential to develop collaboration • Neutrino source for precision measurements of neutrino properties necessarily requires an international collaboration • Political: • European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructure: • Preparing roadmap for major research infrastructure • Funding: • FP7: Design Study call, expected autumn 2006 • UK funding cycle

  19. Scoping study: request for proposal

  20. Scoping study: request for proposal • Empowering invitation: • Recognition of crucial nature of international partnership • Framework for discussion leading to: • Source(s) required for optimal precision exploration of neutrino properties • Consensus on options to be taken forward; • Identification of critical R&D items (h/w and concept development); • Definition of interfaces, performance goals etc. that can be studied in the next conceptual design phase; • Establishment of collaboration for the next phase.

  21. Discussion: • Just at the start; request only ‘a week old’ • Take forward on afternoon of Thursday 17Mar05 • Proposed timescale (working backwards): • Hand in proposal: 27May05 • Full draft of proposal: 13May05 • Meeting to discuss/agree content: 08-08May05 RAL • An exciting opportunity! • (And much work to do)

  22. -- Engelen agreed with my strong feeling that CERN should be associated with the upcoming Neutrino Factory design study and that the 'TESLA' story (a European lab designing an accelerator without CERN support or even with CERN pushing a competing solution) should not repeat itself. -- His opinion from discussing e.g. with the previous SPC chair (Joel Feltesse) is that Europe, countrary to Japan and apparently contrary to the US does not have a clear long term strategy for neutrino physics. Therefore he would like to suggest an independent committee to evaluate the situation and issue recommandations. -- His suggestion would be that such a committee could be generated in the framework of the SPC. The aim could be to make a clear recommandation for a choice between future options, i.e. beta-beam/superbeam and neutrino factory options or to define an ordering between them. (see discussion with Ken Peach tomorrow)

More Related