1 / 29

Activities for CNGS Concerning the OPERA Results

a ) Time Structure of CNGS Muon Spill. Activities for CNGS Concerning the OPERA Results. CNGS Secondary Beam Working Group (EN-MEF, EN-STI, EN-CV, EN-EL, BE-CO, BE-OP, DGS-RP, OPERA and ICARUS members). b ) LHC Beam to CNGS.

leigh
Download Presentation

Activities for CNGS Concerning the OPERA Results

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. a) Time Structure of CNGS Muon Spill Activities for CNGS Concerning the OPERA Results CNGS Secondary Beam Working Group (EN-MEF, EN-STI, EN-CV, EN-EL, BE-CO, BE-OP, DGS-RP, OPERA and ICARUS members) b) LHC Beam to CNGS GianluigiArduini, Thomas Bohl, KarelCornelis, Ilias Efthymiopoulos, Edda Gschwendtner, Mike Lamont, Roberto Losito, Javier Serrano, Rende Steerenberg

  2. a) Motivation muons horns muon detectors  Any effect on protons/neutrinos in the secondary beam line should be seen in the muon signals

  3. target magnetic horns decay tunnel hadron absorber muon detector 1 muon detector 2 Edda Gschwendtner, CERN

  4. 270cm 60cm 11.25cm Muon Monitors • 2 x 41 fixed monitors • (Ionization Chambers) • 2 x 1 movable monitor • LHC type Beam Loss Monitors • Stainless steel cylinder • Al electrodes, 0.5cm separation • N2 gas filling Edda Gschwendtner, CERN CNGS

  5. Horizontal Profile Pit 1 Horizontal Profile Pit 2 Measurements Simulations Muon Monitors: Expected Signals ~5 107 muons/cm2/10.5ms P. Sala et al, FLUKA simulations 2008 8 105 muons/cm2/10.5ms • Challenges: • Pit 1: ~1 THz/cm2 • Pit 2: ~10-100 GHz/cm2 • Different energy spectra in muon profiles in pit 1 and pit 2 • Background signals smearing the timing signals  Detector choice Simulations

  6. Diamond Detectors Detector (very fast!) +electronics system exists in a form that perfectly fits into the general accelerator data taking and logging system. • LHC experiments: Beam condition monitoring • LHC: e.g.: Beam loss monitoring before global LHC abort trigger IP7 SPS Signal 20 ns / div 10 mV / div

  7. Diamond Detectors for CNGS Combine different diamonds and amplifiers: eg. Single-crystal or Poly-crystal with 2GHz/40dB I-amp 4-5 x • Use kicker extraction signal to trigger the scope (like done for BCFT) • Measure the time structure of muon spills with ~1GS/s • Perform cable delay measurements

  8. Planning • Installation during Technical Stop 7-11 Nov 2011 • Tight schedule! (cabling, Ethernet, detector installation,…) LHC schedule • Measurements during last days of CNGS run until 21 Nov Injector schedule

  9. b) Motivation LHC beam to CNGS

  10. Motivation versus LHC beam to CNGS

  11. Reminder – at present • 2*10.5 microseconds extractions from SPS separated by 50 ms • ~1.8e13 per extraction • ~3.6e13 per cycle • Cycle length 6 s 25 ns bins 4e10 LHC beam to CNGS

  12. CNGS flat-out LHC beam to CNGS

  13. CNGS & LHC LHC 50 ns LHC pilot LHC beam to CNGS

  14. Duty cycle • 30/45 of SPS time for CNGS in full production mode but: • LHC filling • Operational inefficiency • Assumed delivery 2.1e17 pot/day • Corresponds to 9.8 hrs of CNGS cycles only  35.3 nu-events/day LHC beam to CNGS

  15. Event rate • 16,111 muon neutrino interactions recorded in 3 years with around 1020 pot • External and internal events • ~1 event per 6 x 1015 pot • (1 tau event so far) LHC beam to CNGS

  16. 1) 4*single bunch • 0.8 nu-events/day • 0.2 nu-events/bunch/day • High bunch intensity • Higher neutrino event rate per bunch • Very clearly time delimited – easy to resolve bunch structure • Low overall production rate LHC beam to CNGS

  17. 7*single bunch • An alternative scheme, using H21 at injection in the PS,  could be envisaged after some extra cabling in the RF hardware. We could the have 1, 3, or 7 bunches. • 7 bunches could be done using a double batch injection from the PSB into the PS (4 + 3), requiring some local cabling. • In this scheme we need nevertheless to verify if coupled bunch oscillations will be an issue and it will take a bit more time to set up (few days) in the PS. • Not clear yet how tightly spaced high intensity bunches behave in SPS. Until now only 2 high intensity bunches with large spacing of 1.2us.  must be tested. • --> 7 x 2.5E11 per 7.2 sec. • 1.4 nu-events/day • 0.2 nu-events/bunch/day HeikoDamerau Rende Steerenberg Thomas Bohl LHC beam to CNGS

  18. 2) 50 ns • 5.9 nu-events/day • 0.04 nu-events/bunch/day • Higher number of bunches, Higher overall production rate • Lower neutrino rate per bunch compared with single bunch • Probably beyond limit of OPERA’s ability to resolve bunch structure LHC beam to CNGS

  19. 3) 150 ns • 1.9 nu-events/day • 0.04 nu-events/bunch/day • Less bunches, shorter cycle wrt 50 ns • Low neutrino rate per bunch • Easy to resolve bunch structure – aim of the exercise LHC beam to CNGS

  20. 4) Hybrid • 3.9 nu-events/day • 0.2 nu-event/bunch/day • Unambiguous bunch structure • Partially compensates loss in pot LHC beam to CNGS

  21. Numbers KarelCornelis LHC beam to CNGS

  22. Production per day LHC beam to CNGS

  23. Commissioning • 2 days off-line preparation • PS have to dig out 150 ns • 2 days commissioning time with beam to checkout: • Interlocks • RF • Re-steer line, check matching, check beam instrumentation • 7 single bunches, if feasible, would take some time LHC beam to CNGS

  24. Beam Instrumentation TT41 BPM system can deal with LHC type beams. There is a choice of integration gate of 8us (used for regular CNGS operation) and 400ns (used for initial CNGS commissioning). The start of the gate is delayed in both cases by 1us from the autotrigger generated by the first bunch down the line. Hence in order to measure using this system you will need a train of bunches which is longer than 1.5us in duration. The system should, in principle, be able to handle any LHC style structure (25ns->150ns). The minimum intensity per bunch which still gives a measurable signal still needs to be verified. Thierry Bogey Rhodri Jones LHC beam to CNGS

  25. Target • Target good for 3.5e13 in 10 microseconds, equally distributed LHC beam to CNGS

  26. Target • 4 x 2.5 10^11 is probably acceptable, but I would suggest to take the time to have at least preliminary simulations of the stresses in the first 3 or 4 graphite  rods to verify the margin that we have on paper. • If we break this target, very probably we shall have to exchange the target station with the spare one, which would have a major impact on the schedule of the facility. Roberto Losito LHC beam to CNGS

  27. Issues • Extraction kicker heating with bunched beams • Satellites/ghosts • Single – clean • 150 ns – trickier • Beam Quality Monitor • Needed? Compatibility with LHC? • Does the beam hit the target cleanly? • Proton beam exit window, He-tank Ti window • In HiRadMat proton exit window: > 0.5mm • OTR as BCT cross-check? LHC beam to CNGS

  28. Issues • Removing the 50 ns jitter induced by the free-running 20 MHz clock signal in OPERA could help in achieving results faster LHC beam to CNGS

  29. Draft schedule 2012 LHC beam to CNGS

More Related