1 / 13

1. Optical matching in MICE

1. Optical matching in MICE. Ulisse Bravar University of Oxford 2 June 2004 Constraints Software MICE proposal mismatch MICE Note 49 (September 2004, Bob Palmer) New Coils from Mike Green MICE Stages IV and V Current issues. 2. Constraints.

ryder
Download Presentation

1. Optical matching in 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. 1. Optical matching in MICE Ulisse Bravar University of Oxford 2 June 2004 • Constraints • Software • MICE proposal mismatch • MICE Note 49 (September 2004, Bob Palmer) • New Coils from Mike Green • MICE Stages IV and V • Current issues

  2. 2. Constraints • Baseline configuration: flip mode p = 200 MeV/c b^ = 42 cm in LH • Goals: achieve minimum b^ as stated: FC & CC uniform B-field inside spectrometer (to 1%): EC uniform b^ inside spectrometer: MC

  3. 3. Software • Matching code from Bob Palmer: ICOOL + minimization routine ‘empty’ MICE channel paraxial tracks • Numerical evolution of b^ , by John Cobb: ‘empty’ MICE channel b^ from G. Penn, MuCool note 71: 2 b^ b^’’ – (b^’)2 + 4 b^2k2 – 4 = 0

  4. 4. MICE proposal • MICE proposal to RAL: • coil configuration from tab. 4.1 • currents from tab. 4.2, case 1a • p = 220 MeV/c • p = 200 MeV/c • p = 180 MeV/c • MISMATCH for p = 200 MeV/c !!!

  5. 5. MICE Note 49 • Currents from Bob Palmer’s note, Sept. 2003 Tab. 4 & 5 SFOFO b^ = 43 cm • 200 MeV/c b^ looks OK: b^ = minimum in LH b^ = uniform in solenoid • Mismatches at 180 and 220 MeV/c

  6. 6. New Coils • Coil configuration from Mike Green and INFN-GE after CERN 2004 meeting (room temperature). • Currents determined with Bob Palmer’s minimization routine. • Again b^ at p = 200 MeV/c looks OK. • Note: big b^ increase in match coil region.

  7. 7. MICE stages IV and V

  8. 8. Present issues • Visibly, BP ‘better’ than MG. How good is good? Issues: • achromaticity • beam scraping, large b^ in MC, stay-clear area • peak B-field in FC varies, i.e. B = 0 away from centre of LH

  9. 9. ICOOL simulations (1) • Actual beam • ‘Empty’ channel • b^ from paraxial beam consistent with b^ from G. Penn eqn. • b^ from beam with e^ = 6 p mm rad is mismatched

  10. 10. ICOOL simulations (2) • ‘Empty’ channel + paraxial beam • ‘Empty’ channel + actual beam • ‘Full’ channel (i.e. LH + RF) + actual beam (i.e. e^ = 6 p mm rad) • Problem: matching for p = 200 MeV/c, but p is NOT constant along ‘full’ channel.

  11. 11. Cooling • MICE proposal • MICE Note 49 • New coils e^ = 6 p mm rad, cooling De / e = • 13.5% (MICE proposal) • 15.2% (MICE Note 49) • 14.6% (New coils)

  12. 12. Conclusions • We have a realistic set of coils and currents with an appropriate optic solution • Solution is OK for Stages V & VI (and IV) • Need to determine optic solutions for all MICE momenta, various b^-values and flip, no-flip & semi-flip modes • A lot of fine-tuning is necessary to achieve optimum performance

  13. 13. Appendix Present coil configuration, MICE Stage VI. Coils and currents from CERN 2004 meeting. Flip mode, p = 200 MeV/c, b^ = 42 cm in LH.

More Related