1 / 8

MICE Upstream Particle Identification

MICE Upstream Particle Identification. Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology March 30, 2004. JAN04 MICE Beamline. (MAR04 differs only by changes in magnet positions, primarily ~30% increase between TOF0 and TOF1). Upstream Cherenkov (proposed). ISIS Beam. TOF0. TOF1. Tracker1.

alexander-mooney
Download Presentation

MICE Upstream Particle Identification

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. MICE Upstream Particle Identification Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology March 30, 2004

  2. JAN04 MICE Beamline (MAR04 differs only by changes in magnet positions, primarily ~30% increase between TOF0 and TOF1) Upstream Cherenkov (proposed) ISIS Beam TOF0 TOF1 Tracker1 (3-D view approximately a plan view)

  3. Why These positions? • TOF0 • Must be after B2 • Behind Q4 to reduce singles • As far forward as possible to maximize TOF1-TOF0 distance • TOF1 • Must be after TOF0 • As far back as possible to maximize TOF1-TOF0 distance • As far back as possible to let more pi+ decay • Ahead of Q9 for magnetic shielding from Tracker1 solenoid • As far back as possible to minimize singles and pileup • Cherenkov1 • Must be after TOF0 • As far back as possible to let more pi+ decay • Needs smaller magnetic field than TOF0/TOF1 • Needs more space than TOF0/TOF1 • As far back as possible to minimize singles and pileup

  4. Can we really intersperse the TOFs and Quads? • Simulations show that the maximum excursion in the quads corresponds to less Δt than the TOF resolution • Back of the Envelope: It seems quite reasonable to intersperse the TOFs and Quads. Besides, we don’t really have space in the hall to do otherwise.

  5. JAN04 Beamline TOF1-TOF0 Performance (Red dots are bigger than blue dots) • Includes: • TOF resolution of 50 ps • Momentum measured in Tracker1, with resolution 2-25 MeV/c depending on P┴ • JAN04 beamline (MAR04 has 30% longer distance) • Events generated to fill the Q4 aperture, with pi/mu=1 (really ~0.02 at TOF1, ~0.002 for good-μ+)

  6. π+Beam-Related Singles Rates Rate is kHz during the 1 ms per second of good Target & RF Other backgrounds are not included.

  7. A Note About These Singles Rates • In Abingdon we decided we need 600 good-mu+/second • JAN04 does not achieve that rate with the target assumptions used • To achieve 600 good-mu+/sec we will need to insert the target deeper into the ISIS beam (assuming losses permit that) • That will increase all singles rates proportionally • That implies 12-15 MHz at TOF0 is not unlikely • Note that the JAN04A tune had a factor of 6x more good-mu+/sec than JAN04, with only a few percent increase in TOF0 singles – it did this by keeping more muons in the cooling channel, not by getting more into TOF0 • Note also that these rates are for JAN04 – we need to simulate MAR04 and obtain corresponding rates

  8. Quad Apertures in Muon Channel

More Related