1 / 22

MICE collaboration meeting at CERN

MICE collaboration meeting at CERN. Neutrino Factory status in the commmunity Some news from the approval front Agenda of this meeting Aims and charges. Neutrino Factory status in the commmunity (Europe). There was a meeting on Neutrino Oscillations in Venice (Dec. 2003)

tova
Download Presentation

MICE collaboration meeting at CERN

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 collaboration meeting at CERN • Neutrino Factory status in the commmunity • Some news from the approval front • Agenda of this meeting • Aims and charges

  2. Neutrino Factory status in the commmunity (Europe) There was a meeting on Neutrino Oscillations in Venice (Dec. 2003) This was not prepared by the 'ECFA/BENE' organization but by an independent team missioned by the INFN and IN2P3 managements. The conclusions were very much in support of -- a very large underground Water Cherenkov detector in the Fréjus Tunnel (there is a franco-italian agreement to study/promote this) -- the CERN SPL (or high intensity proton driver) and beta-beams -> study of oscillations of electron and muon (anti)neutrinos of O(500 MeV) there was a paper by L. Maiani in support of this scenario Neutrino Factory is considered as a possible step beyond this: 1. present: CNGS programme 2. next: J-PARC neutrino programme (T2K) nuclear reactor expt. (Double-Chooz) 3. Megaton Cherenkov and SPL (beta-beam) 4. Neutrino Factory

  3. Neutrino Factory is seen as -- more precise -- allowing experiments that are decisive in solving ambiguities o energy spectrum o conjunction of ne --> nm and ne --> ntexperiments (and anti-neutrino) which require high energyne -- the first step towards muon colliders Why is it not placed earlier? my interpretation: -- seen as technologically uncertain -- seen as very expensive

  4. Where will this get us… X 5 0.10 130 2.50 50 10 Mezzetto comparison of reach in the oscillations; right to left: present limit from the CHOOZ experiment, expected sensitivity from the MINOS experiment,CNGS (OPERA+ICARUS) 0.75 MW JHF to super Kamiokande with an off-axis narrow-band beam, Superbeam: 4 MW CERN-SPL to a 400 kt water Cerenkov@ Fréjus (J-PARC phase II similar) Neutrino Factory with 40 kton large magnetic detector.

  5. 3 sigma sensitivity of various options NUFACT Superbeam only Beta-beam only Betabeam + superbeam Upgrade 400kton-> 1 Mton J-PARC HK 540 kton?

  6. Neutrino Factory studies and R&D USA, Europe, Japan have each their scheme. Only one has been costed, US study II: + detector: MINOS * 10 = about 300 M€ or M$ Neutrino Factory CAN be done…..but it is too expensive as is. Aim: ascertain challenges can be met + cut cost in half.

  7. Our difficulties in finding the funding are undoubtedly related to the perception of Neutrino Factory as a long term, expensive and uncertain goal. Yet, the physics case is as strong as ever… and the progress in the R&D is remarkable. => we must keep insisting on the physics virtues of muon storage rings, and perform the R&D that will bring the technology closer to reality.

  8. some NEWS from the approval front (more will be summarized in the collaboration board meeeting) -- UK Gateway 1 will be passed with ambre light (red on funding) Not official yet -- US funding review will be April 12-13. "However, that has now been changed and we are aiming for sometime in May 10-28." -- CH exceptional funding request was submitted in october 2003… positive review but negative outcome in march 2004 .. will go into regular funding at lower level. (more in september 2004) -- EU design study proposal (Rob Edgecock et al) will be submitted in february 2005 -- will include MICE request -- Italian funding request refused in 2003. RAL management will visit INFN management as soon as Gateway 1 is official main stumbling block as I see it: funding for the spectrometer solenoids

  9. m - STEP I: spring 2006 STEP II: summer 2006 STEP III: winter 2007 STEP IV: spring 2007 STEP V: fall 2007 STEP VI: 2008

  10. MICE collaboration meeting 29 March -- April 2 2004 some aims as defined in RAL oct. 2003 -- internal safety review to be passed (and was passed, congratulations!) answer committees questions and address remaining issues (other absorbers, heat load, etc.) -- clarify RF power source scenario -- establish costs and WBS of experiment --> rebaseline beam cryocoolers detector shielding design particle ID system aim is to eliminate double counting of contingency, sharpen the cost estimates and reduce them if possible (while keeping the experiments ambitions) -- progress on the validation of tracker (number of photons, efficiency, dead channels?) -- begin study of needs in controls and monitoring with help from simulations and design team

  11. 52 have registered (a record! ) Monday 9:30 Plenary (AB auditorium) 13:30 AFCWG (AB auditorium) 13:30 Tracker (17-1-007) technical board meeting (17-1-007) Tuesday 9:00-12:00 beamline (AB auditorium) 10:45 Alignment and tolerances (17-1-007) 13:30 PID (AB auditorium) 13:30 RF (304-1-001A) (with phone connection) Wednesday 9:00 simulations (32-1-A 24) 9:00 magnets and integration (AB auditorium) 13:30 Plenary: reports from wroking groups 17:30 Collaboration board meeting (room 304-1-001A) 19:30 buses will wait in front of building 33 collaboration dinner Thursday 9:00 PLENARY (AB auditorium) in particular discussion on controls and monitoring

  12. MICE Collaboration Board Agenda CERN March 31 17:30 AB auditorium unless phone connection requested. 1. Approval of the Minutes of the last meeting 2. Spokesman’s Remarks Executive Board Report 3. Funding Situation by country Belgium (G Gregoire) France (J-M Rey) Italy (V Palladino Japan (Y Kuno) Russia (A Skrinsky) Switzerland (A Blondel) UK (K Long, P Drumm) USA (D Kaplan) 4. Technical Coordinator’s Report 5. Any Issues from the Plenary Meeting requiring decisions 6. Procedure for election of Collaboration Board Chairperson 7. Election of First MICE Spokesperson 8. AOB

  13. Controlling MICE A preliminary set of control measurements and experiments Physics point of view -- to begin discussion --

  14. Experimental Systematics Mice fiction in 2007 or so. . MICE measures e.g. (eout/ ein)exp = 0.904 ± 0.001 (statistical) and compares with (eout/ ein)theory. = 0.895 and tries to understand the difference. SIMULATION experimental systematics: modeling of spectrometers is not as reality theory systematics: modeling of cooling cell is not as reality REALITY MEASUREMENT

  15. Principle of experimenter's point of view. We will measure the emittance ratio with a statistical precision of eout/ein of  10 -3 (leave aside issues on definition of emittance and such. 6D emittance IS well defined) we have to investigate the sources of systematic errors at a level that is about 3 times smaller, so that 10 independent sources will accumulate to the same level --> aim at keeping each source of error at 3 10-4 level if we can.

  16. Example of such: Coil tilt tolerance. Take U. Bravar's MICE note 62: this looks like a quadratic dependence. it takes 40 =0.068 rad to get a change by 0.065 ==> it will take D(tilt) = 0.068rad x sqrt(0.001/0.065) to get a change by 0.001 this is 8mrad or 0.5 degrees. this sensitivity is (3x) smaller than the tolerance calculated by U. Bravar, because MICE will be sensitive to effects that are somewhat smaller than what is assumed to be needed for the cooling channel. similarly for the transverse position I find ~6mm tolerance instead of 20mm

  17. In fact we will probably be able to position the magnets to a better precision than that. BUT: The magnet system will be operated in a variety of currents and even polarities and it is difficult to assume that the field maps will simply be the linear superposition of those measured on each single magnet independently: forces are likely to squeeze the supports and move the coils in the cryostats. (or maybe not?) ==> we will measure the magnetic field with probes (NIKHEF) (contacts Frank Linde and Frank Filthaut F.Linde@nikhef.nl and filthaut@hef.kun.nl )

  18. The magnetic measurement devices as from the proposal see pages 52, 53. NB, we need to know *where* the probes are for this to work

  19. What needs to be controlled from the point of view of the physics? How can we control it by design tolerances / by monitoring / with the beam itself

  20. example of such an experiment Eout -Ein (GeV) simulated by Janot in 2001 this measures ERF(t) (nb: this was at 88 MHz)

  21. summary at first look the required monitoring consists of -- Ampermeter for each coil -- Magnetic field measurement -- monitor position of probes and coil assemblies -- ERF(t) (gradient and phase of each cavity) -- absorber density (i.e. T & P) and thickness. Some of these are not so obvious but this is what one should be able to do in a neutrino factory The muons themselves will provide very powerful cross-checks (energy loss and energy gain, transfer matrix) (this one cannot do easily at all in a neutrino factory) Is this the right approach? Did I forgot something? How does one do that? Who does it?

More Related