1 / 33

MICE collaboration meeting 11 at Berkeley -- Wrap-Up --

MICE collaboration meeting 11 at Berkeley -- Wrap-Up --. AIMS were: tracker validation process design and safety working group begin formation of DAQ Controls and Monitoring group continue to broaden simulation effort review ongoing activity. Very intense meeting with a lot to swallow.

usoa
Download Presentation

MICE collaboration meeting 11 at Berkeley -- Wrap-Up --

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 11 at Berkeley -- Wrap-Up -- • AIMS were: • tracker validation process • design and safety working group • begin formation of DAQ Controls and Monitoring group • continue to broaden simulation effort • review ongoing activity Very intense meeting with a lot to swallow. ommitted PID, RF R&D and status since you just heard them please interupt if I forgot something.

  2. Thanks to the outstanding work of all MICE with special congratulations to UK colleagues (and our godfather K.Peach!) for getting experiment through gateways: MICE is getting REAL! First beam 1st April 2007 **** 365*2+46= 776 days to data taking !!!

  3. what is our schedule now? m - STEP I: spring 2007 STEP II: summer 2007? STEP III: winter 2008? STEP IV: spring 2008? STEP V: fall 2008? STEP VI: 2009

  4. convener is Wing Lau • if MICE members have a concern about safety they should *scream* and tell Wing Lau (cc: Paul Drumm) immediately. SAFETY is EVERY MICE’s business • design and safety working groupensure that • MICE is designed and built according to appropriate and safe engineering and according to RAL safety rules. • This will happen with 3 successive milestones • internal audit • external review (production readiness) • external review (OK to operate) my impression: ALL production reviews pertinent to PHASE I will have to be passed ***before end 2005*** …!

  5. Process Wing Design & Safety Group We are here! Task Leader Task Leader Task Leader Agree Procedure Task Members Task Members Task Members Audit & Advise Develop Concepts & Design, Preparedocumentation From Document... to Presentation by Video? Invitees? Review Review fit for purpose Documents ok  Advice? Audit & Advise Agree when ready Document Review Rehearsal Pre-manufacture Support  Manufacture&Install RAL Review FINALDocument Audit Acceptance RAL Operate Agree when ready Detail Design & Safety…

  6. Task Matrix

  7. Design & Safety audit schedule: • items / deliverables • Beamline • Related infrastructures • R &D programmes including: • Hydrogen systems • RF • Detectors including • Spectrometer solenoid, the tracker Scifi • TOFs, Cherenkovs & EmCalorimeters Time line ….Oct 2005 ….Oct 2005 …. …. ….…. June 2005 …..…..

  8. The ongoing process calls for a very systematic and unified description of all elements of MICE -- already at the design stage -- for the primary sake of production and operation needs, but also in view of RAL review process. Interlock logics and consequences will require a first loop soon for the phase 1 of the experiment. so do DAQ Controls and Monitoring. Important that each subsystem ask themselves if the framework is inclusive and covers properly design and safety issues for their system. System coordinators need to count backward the design and construction schedule and interact with the S&D WG leader to decide when their reviews should take place!

  9. among many other items… critical Phase I item is beam line shieldingwe dont want it to be oversized/expensivehow much is really necessary? who is responsible for the RF-tracker shield? (tracker or AFC?) (a phase 2 item) differences between step 2 and 3 for the disposition of the downstream (or upstream detectors) and shielding needs design interface between shielding plate and tracker (and diffuser!) still needs design work.

  10. TRD pride it will keep evolving and MICE documentation will grow around it! TRD: Paul’s guilt it is still not finished

  11. TRACKER • 1. MICE note is available! • 2. KEK Beam test • testing is part of • team building and • 2) making sure that the detector that will be delivered really works. • aims of the test: • without Mag. field • basic performance test • light yield (VLPC vs PMT?) overall efficiency (with defocused beam) • position resolution (alignment error) • multiple scattering • then with mag-field: • Magnetic field increases light yield (!?) • Check momentum measurement and pattern recognition of curved tracks. • momentum measurement by TOF ar from beam input? • ‘Prototype is very near to the final thing’

  12. Also: time-of-flight and Cherenkov counters are being built in Japan. and ! Data acquisition etc… consistency with/of final DAQ system of MICE? Prototype? big motivation and impressive turnout of Japanese colleagues! THIS WILL KEEP A LOT OF MICE BUSY IN THE NEXT MONTHS! some remaining tracker design issues: -- work out where the magnetic monitors go -- …….

  13. 3.Tracker Performance superb job of simulations by Malcolm Chris et all software group example of G4 MICE used for actual ‘analysis’ Pt and Pz resolution vs B (3T OK, gets worse quickly at lower field) Pt and Pz resolution at equil. emittance Neat method to unfold the resolution by means of full variance matrix approach (generalization of variance additions) Conclusion: the benchmark ‘resolution < 10% of rms distribution’ is passed, or nearly passed, for all variables, using measured performance and realistic background. TRACKER CHOICE IS VALIDATED Conclusion II the TOF needs urgently to be designed, prototyped and tested. next tasks: -- how do we calibrate the resolution in situ? -- are biases well enough understood? -- inclusion of other detectors (TOF, CKOV, ECAL) in analysis and for design of Cherenkov and ECAL

  14. DAQ controls and monitoring • clearly needs definition of terms (spill vs trigger vs bunch crossing etc..) • define the size of data one is talking about(lists were drawn already) • define the data acquisition frequency needed. • which data will be used for analysis, • which for monitoring, ‘talking to my device’ • which is part of the safety loop! • other issues: • DAQ group to be formed!

  15. Data Rate • A tracker has 5 stations  5x640=3200ch • 4 VLPC cassettes = 32 MCMs = 4096 ch • Assume: • Beam structure : 1k muons / 1msec (in every 1sec?) • Reading all channels • 4kBytes / event • 4MBytes / spill (8MBytes/spill for full tracker upstream and downstream) NOT ZERO SUPPRESSED Makoto Yoshida  Need to collect similar information for each piece of MICE producing information and compare to tracker information size.

  16. An idea of the DAQ architecture MICE Control MICE Builder MICE Storage 8MBytes/spill Tracker Control Tracker Builder PID Builder Beam Builder Bit3 SASeq#1 SASeq#2 SASeq#3 SASeq#4 SERDES#1 SERDES#2 SERDES#3 SERDES#4 SERDES#5 SERDES#6 SERDES#7 SERDES#8 Bit3 SASeq#1 SASeq#2 SASeq#3 SASeq#4 SERDES#1 SERDES#2 SERDES#3 SERDES#4 SERDES#5 SERDES#6 SERDES#7 SERDES#8 4MBytes/spill Cryosat Control Tracker Slow Ctrl Tracker Collector Upstream Tracker Collector Downstream 4kBytes/event Bit3 1553 1553 VLPC #1 L VLPC #1 R VLPC #2 L VLPC #2 R VLPC #3 L VLPC #3 R VLPC #4 L VLPC #4 R VLPC #1 L VLPC #1 R VLPC #2 L VLPC #2 R VLPC #3 L VLPC #3 R VLPC #4 L VLPC #4 R 4kBytes/event 4096ch Upstream Tracker Downstream Tracker

  17. How to talk between MICE control system and Tracker controller Protocol TCP/IP (Network Shared Memory) or ? Items to be communicated Run mode (beam, calibration, test) Commands for initialization, setup, and start data taking How to send tracker data to the MICE event builder Protocol Data structure Spill header (spill#, date, time, detector ID, temperature data, threshold setting, etc.) Event header (detector ID, event#, time, data length, etc.) Data (ADC, TDC, etc.) DAQ sequence Initialize Generate processes and send process ID back to controller Collectors Initialize electronics Setup Set run number Set run mode Set threshold, etc. Start Start data taking Stop Stop data taking Loop back to Setup Abort Kill processes To be determined

  18. Target and beam line prototype is ready  first measurements of the oscillatory pattern will see more (what is the spec in regularity?) Concerns: regularity of motion: what reproducibility is needed? how many protons are needed? radiation levels (FLUKA calculations!) to target and mechanism --will not be tested – should they? failure modes? Apparatus to measure the particle rates is foreseen…DAQ device and system? Muon beam line include material 23 MeV/c lost in various material along the beam line! Now we need 266 MeV/c (will require going up in pion momentum for purity) to get 200 MeV/c in center of first LH2 absorber

  19. position of the diffuser lead plate and associated mechanics clearly came out from the discussion in tracker parallel session that the present design is not appropriate. (2 days operation) diffuser lead plate: 1. what are the thicknesses we want? 2. how often does it need to be changed? 3. where is is possible to place it to get desired effect suggested 5 or 6 nominal emitances impact on precision on scraping and equilibrium emittance determination Clearly this is an issue that needs to be solved better specification: changing diffuser should require less than 30 minutes

  20. How many points do we need on this curve? guex: 1.5 X0=? 2.5 X0=? 4 6 10 mm.rad equilibrium emittance = 2.5 mm.radian curves for 23 MV, 3 full absorbers, particles on crest

  21. Optics discussion • all solutions that are more or less orthodox have been matched. (Bravo Ulisse!) • still need to understand mismatch for off-momentum muons. • The spectrometers should be at a distance of 800mm for stage III • how many leads for the focus pairs? • MRI MAGNETS • OPTICS: many matches were tried for GE-MRI magnets but some left to be tried: • MRI AFC MRI with distance and MRI field as free parameters. (it is likely that, even if this works, it will have more limited functionality) • M.Green: 1 matching coil pair is ~400K$ and two are ~600K$ • Ken Long • GE MRI magnet solution leads to a number of issues. • (design of the outputs and flanges of the tracker for instance) • It seems that we should stick to our baseline design unless absolutely forced. • no positive decision until we really exhausted the solutions for getting the magnets we really want. •  what is the maximal emittance that fits in the tracker for B=3T?

  22. Naive (personal) remark one spectrometer solenoid is 1M$ and two are 1.6 M£. Will we waste (0.4M$ or more) by buying two solenoids from two different firms? If this blessing happens I think we must be creative and make better use of it!

  23. Software • Fantastic job by software team! ‘Students are taking over the project. Training more. Can use more people’ • MICE notes coming out of the gang • (two as we spoke… was this engineered?) • Completed basic documentation and crushed 12 bugs • New tests for PID detectors Rewriten the calorimeter from scratch in two weeks • Implemented analysis tools – and validated the tracker! •  keep chasing bugs and inconsistencies (ECALC9 and Chris’s code, G4MICE vs ICOOL, etc..) • ‘Simple things should be easy and complicated things should be possible’ • Open questions: • How do we deal with misalignments? • we will need to evaluate the effect of errors and define tolerances • how do we define an event? • Definition of T=0 ? • material near the beam-stay-clear-- is it accurate? link with engineering team? • phase of electric field , gate etc…. • need to be solved by DAQ group • need for physics-oriented discussions (working group?) Users are eventually expected to be able to write analysis code. physics tools  particle ID, tracking, emittance calculation

  24. MICE STEPS AND PHASES 1. Steps and stages are identical -- as defined in the subsequent figure. steps have a precise geometrical definition in principle. As there may be small variations within each stage, decimal points have been used. STEP II.V STEP II.VI Question: in step 2 there is no agreed orientation of the Spectrometer solenoid! (working groups are invited to express their opinion – tracker, PID, engineering)

  25. STEP V STEP V.0 Should get 5-10 MV RF acceleration (limited by dark current) Shorter, less expensive, no coupling coil, (very limited optics flexibility) does this work in flip, RFoFo, non flip modes? These are mostly optics questions

  26. Phases are funding defined m - STEP I: spring 2007 PHASE I STEP II: summer 2007 STEP III: winter 2008 PHASE II STEP IV: spring 2008 STEP V: fall 2008 STEP VI: 2009

  27. Infrastructure • Details such as doors etc. being worked out by RAL team! • There will be a request to keep chimneys etc to reasonable (minimum) • size. • Shielding we want to reduce the steel shielding (or borrow the steel?) • (O(200k£) • calculate more precisely worst case scenarios for radiation Access Paul gave a summary of the access procedure. Some MICE detectors are in zones that will be only seldom accessible. ex. TOF0. consequences? design magnificient 3-D drawings and stripping mode! (Bravo Stephanie!) Tools to cross check with G4MICE seem to exist. would love to see this exercized. (Yagmur, Stephanie) http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/design/MICE/mice_page.htm

  28. worse case forces have been calculated (Bravo Yuri!) new ideas for supports that are precise and strong enough to stand the forces (Shim block) step 4 is an issue for forces and support.

  29. AFC Module (emphasis on safety). considering already the various sensors (e.g.temperature) Exact number and disposition need to be discussed and decided  When do we decide to vent or take H2 back to Hydride bed? what is a safety sensor what is a monitoring sensor what is a measurement device to be used in analysis? RF module safety. Safety included in the concepts. Beginning of the process. first step is to identify the hazards. cavity sparking maybe the most scary. Resulting heat load (few W?) Monitoring necessary. N2 or non-O2 gas necessary in the coupler RF turns off very quickly. Vacuum gauges.

  30. Suggested policy for presentation of MICE results (posters, presentations and articles) at conferences and workshops Information given outside of MICE in talks, posters or articles should have been endorsed by the collaboration. Therefore, by default, the material should be based on well established facts shown at a previous collaboration meeting. Proposals for MICE changes should remain internal. Material which is new but considered of interest for a conference or workshop or other meeting should be shown at a video conference more than two weeks before, so as to allow a second iteration if needed, and announced as requesting blessing from the collaboration The blessing will be granted by the Executive Board after such presentation and following discussion. This policy will be revised with experience and in any case before MICE data taking.

  31. Next important Video Conferences: • 9 March is the next one • Results and talks for PAC05 16-20 May 2005 • ‘at least two weeks before a dedicated video conference should be organized’ • 27 April 2005(special) + backup on 4 May (regular). Presentation on 27 April mandatory. Results and talks for NUFACT05 21-26 June 2005 Most should be similar to PAC05 at least two weeks before 1 june with backup on 15 June Presentation on 1 June mandatory Next MICE collaboration meeting at Frascati 26-29 June Palladino (local) and Kaplan +Bonesini? (agenda) will organize

  32. CONCLUSIONS 1. progress since last collaboration meeting has been phenomenal 2.MICE is getting REAL! First beam 1st April 2007 **** 365*2+46= 776 days to data taking !!! we have a lot to do, soon!

  33. MERCI! Special congratulations to UK colleagues Ken Long et al (and our godfather K.Peach!) for getting experiment through gateways All MICE members for attendance great presentations, hard and intelligent work Paul Drumm and technical team for fantastic organization&foresight that will get us to goal safely Mike Zisman and Tom Gallant for excellent organization buses, sweets, coffee and pizzas

More Related