1 / 41

Mu to e Meeting BNL, 11-12 June 2006

Mu to e Meeting BNL, 11-12 June 2006. Less Pions (Extinction) More Muons. Yannis Semertzidis BNL. Extinction requirement relaxation (Kevin O’Sullivan) Stopping Target Geometry (Cenap Ozben, David Morse). Winning Strategy: hit the ground running….

wayde
Download Presentation

Mu to e Meeting BNL, 11-12 June 2006

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. Mu to e Meeting BNL, 11-12 June 2006 Less Pions (Extinction)More Muons Yannis Semertzidis BNL Extinction requirement relaxation (Kevin O’Sullivan) Stopping Target Geometry (Cenap Ozben, David Morse)

  2. Winning Strategy: hit the ground running… • Use AGS to provide high proton Intensity with correct timing (relax extinction and high intensity requirements) • Use FFAG (YK, et al) • Re-evaluate B-field solenoid requirements (spec them based on physics requirements)

  3. Winning Strategy: hit the ground running… • Use current AGS capabilities (no upgrades) to provide high proton Intensity with correct timing (relax extinction and high intensity requirements, i.e. task is mostly finished!).

  4. Winning Strategy: hit the ground running… • Use FFAG (YK, et al), to get rid of the pions and greatly improve the muon intensity at the correct momentum by phase rotation. This also relaxes the solenoid field requirements. • Re-evaluate B-field solenoid requirements (relax them based on physics)

  5. Pion Momentum

  6. Winning Strategy: hit the ground running… • Overall: work for a year to produce a proposal. It may be possible to reduce the cost to $30M for the whole experimental apparatus.

  7. Extinction • Primary particles are generated in the target: Sharp source • Muons are produced from pions: Diffused source • Different pitch angles and momentum distribution (Phase Space)

  8. Target in the PS

  9. Production Target Pion helix in B-field Pion source Muon helix in B-field Muon source

  10. Negative muon y-z distribution

  11. Muon Y, X distribution at entrance of T.S. (Tumakov’s muons) Y [cm] X [cm]

  12. Pion Y, X distribution at entrance of T.S. (Tumakov’s pions) Y [cm] X [cm]

  13. What is the minimum distance (Rm) of the circle from center? Rm

  14. Minimum distance of pion and muon circles from center Pions Muons Rm[cm]

  15. Minimum distance of pion and muon circles from center Pions Muons Rm [cm]

  16. Pion minimum distance from center in the Y, X plane The target is 20cm long and slanted by ~10o, i.e. dx~3cm! Y [cm] X [cm]

  17. Muon minimum distance from center in the Y, X plane Y [cm] X [cm]

  18. Pitch angle for pions and muons Pions @ TS Muons @ DS Muons @ TS

  19. Pitch angle vs Rm Pions Muons Rm [cm]

  20. Muon Y, X distribution at the entrance of D.S. Negative muon losses due to vertical drift. We will study different ways of losing the positive charges (helix in opposite way) with less drift and different collimator geometries. Y [cm] X [cm]

  21. Simulated Trajectories in PS & TS

  22. Summary (Extinction) • The pion source is sharp, as opposed to the muon source • Take advantage of the different phase space of muons and pions, electrons, anti-protons, etc • “The Plug” promises to reduce the extinction requirements by at least ~102 We further need to • Optimize the number and geometry of the Plugs • Study different collimator geometries • Estimate the plug efficiency

  23. Visited BNL for three months, until end of May Plus David Morse, Summer student

  24. Present Target Geometry17 circular foils, 0.2mm thick each 80cm

  25. Muon Stopping Target • Increase muon stopping power • Minimize energy loss for 105MeV electrons and better the collection efficiency

  26. Considered Various Geometries: Original (default) geometry of circular foils

  27. Non-stop muons: Circular foils Muon energy loss [MeV] Muon energy before and after the target [MeV]

  28. Muon hits : Circular foils Muon energy loss [MeV]

  29. Stopped muons: Circular foils muons Muon energy loss [MeV] Muon energy before the target [MeV] electrons

  30. Stopped muons: Single cone geometry Muon energy loss [MeV] 11.5o Muon energy before the target [MeV]

  31. Stopped muons: Multi cone geometry 40o Muon energy loss [MeV] Muon energy before the target [MeV]

  32. Stopped muons: Multi cone geometry 80o Muon energy loss [MeV] Muon energy before the target [MeV]

  33. Stopped muons: Multi cone geometry 40o Muon energy loss [MeV] Muon energy before the target [MeV]

  34. Stopping efficiency for 10,000 muons (Tumakov’s) for same volume target

  35. Spectrometer Performance Calculations 10 Aiming for ~200 KeV/c resolution 1.0  0.1 FWHM~900 keV 0.01 103 104 105 106

  36. How do 105 MeV electrons fair? Circular foilsFWHM: 0.79MeV

  37. Signal and DIO from the proposal 0.8MeV

  38. How do 105 MeV electrons fair? Single coneFWHM: 0.85MeV

  39. How do 105 MeV electrons fair? Multi cone bestFWHM: 0.61MeV 60o

  40. 40o 50o 80o 70o

  41. Summary • GEANT3 installed on BNL computers with both Rashid’s and Vladimir’s codes. • Have studied a few geometries including the current circular foils. • Preliminary results: multi-cones with 60o-70o is best: 25% more muons stopped, with less energy loss for 105MeV electrons and better collect. effic. We further need to • Finish the study • Study new geometries, to take advantage of the e- pitch • Include target supports for background estimation

More Related