1 / 19

On storage ring and muon energy

On storage ring and muon energy. IDS-NF plenary meeting RAL, UK September 22-25, 2010 Walter Winter Universität Würzburg. TexPoint fonts used in EMF: A A A A A A A A. Contents. Triangular shaped storage ring? Muon energy? Open issues (towards the RDR!?).

guri
Download Presentation

On storage ring and muon energy

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. On storage ring and muon energy IDS-NF plenary meetingRAL, UK September 22-25, 2010Walter Winter Universität Würzburg TexPoint fonts used in EMF: AAAAAAAA

  2. Contents • Triangular shaped storage ring? • Muon energy? • Open issues (towards the RDR!?) Discussion materialbased onAgarwalla, Huber, Tang, Winter, in preparationVERY PRELIMINARY RESULTS!!!

  3. Triangular-shaped rings

  4. Assumptions (for triangle) Working hypothesis: characteristics similar to racetrack ( cost!) • Circumference: c=1609 m • Curvature radius: r=78 m • Isosceles triangle • 2.5 1020 useful muons over s=600m: SF=1

  5. Theorems (1) 1. One can always build a triangular-shaped ring if c > 2pr, indep. of detector locationsProof: use inner circle = minimum „triangle“; then „pull apart“

  6. Theorems (2) 2. The worst case number of useful muon decays will be similar to the racetrack case (modulo curved sections) Proof: Worst case looks like racetrack: SF ~ 2 (all muons in that ring) * ½ ~ 1

  7. Geometry/efficiency Examples: • RAL  LNGS+Henderson: SF=1.38 (1510+7107 km) • CERN Pyhaselmi+Icicle creek: SF=1.00 (2290+7809 km) • RAL  Slanic+INO: SF=0.95 (2112+7822 km)

  8. Considered sites/baselines

  9. Considered combinations

  10. Muon energy

  11. New ingredients • MIND re-analysis (Cervera, Laing, Martin-Albo, Soler, arXiv:1004.0358) • high backgrounds, especially at ~ 8 GeV (antinus) • nt contamination (Donini, Gomez Cadenas, Meloni, arXiv:1005.2275) • peaks at low energies (good or bad?) (reconstructed energy)

  12. Performance comparison • With new MIND analysis, performance is clearly worse(problem: CC BG) • Tau neutrinos improve sensitivity

  13. E-reoptimization • Example: RALband: second baseline varied • Some indication that in many cases sensitivity saturates at ~ 15 GeV

  14. Site-based results • Need L > 3000 km!!!

  15. Open issues/discussion (maybe more towards the RDR)

  16. Open issues: baselines • Long baseline not so critical (many options, exact choice not so relevant) • Short baseline: only one option close to 4000km found: JPARC-CJPL (China)No option between 4000km and 5000km • However: long enough baseline crucial for CPV • New sites needed • Can one build the detector overground?

  17. Open issues: detector • Impact of new MIND analysis, which is in preparation? • Ways to reduce CC backgrounds (anti-nu)? • Consistent analysis of nt contaminations • Near detectors/systematics • MIND close to overground (previous slide)?

  18. Open issues: accelerator • Feasibility/ pros/cons triangular-shaped ring • Consider some accelerator components optional • Reasaonable spitting points for staging? ? 4.5-5 GeV? ? ?

  19. Open issues: costing Possible ways to reduce cost? • Triangular shaped ring (possibly with two pipes) versus two racetracks? • 12.6 GeV – 25 GeV FFAG optional? Maybe: define system in a suitable way for energy upgrades, reflected in costing? • MIND overground???

More Related