1 / 29

MICE challenges organization global funding situation

MICE challenges organization global funding situation. Why MICE?. Based on Muon collider ideas and development (Palmer et al, 92->), the Neutrino Factory concept (Geer, 1998) resonated in 1998 with the

zea
Download Presentation

MICE challenges organization global funding situation

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 challenges organization global funding situation

  2. Why MICE? Based on Muon collider ideas and development (Palmer et al, 92->), the Neutrino Factory concept (Geer, 1998) resonated in 1998 with the final demonstration of Atmospheric Neutrino Oscillations by the SuperK Collaboration. International workshops: NUFACT 99 (Lyon, France) NUFACT 00 (Montery, California) NUFACT 01 (Tsukuba, Japan) NUFACT 02 (London, UK) NUFACT 03 (Columbia,NY,USA) NUFACT 04 (Osaka, Japan) NUFACT 05 (Frascati,Italy)  Neutrino Factory is the ultimate tool for study of Neutrino Oscillations -- unique source of high energy ne --reach/sensitivity better by order(s) of magnitude wrt other techniques (e.g. super-beams) for _ m+ e+ne nm * q13* ** matter effects ** *** leptonic CP violation *** ****ne  nm andnt**** NB : leptonic CP violation is a key ingredient in the leading explanations for the mystery of the baryon-antibaryon asymmetry in our universe

  3. ~NOvA +PD

  4. Particle physicist: • Q: Can a Neutrino Factory be built? • Accelerator physisicst: • A: YES! (US Study II, CERN) • but… it is expensive, • and many ingredients • have never been demonstrated! •  R&D is needed. (est. 5yrs) • to • ascertain performance • reduce costs • among critical items: • ***Target*** • *** COOLING *** *** Acceleration *** Cooling component development programme+ ‘blast test’: MUCOOL collabration (US-Japan-UK)

  5. IONIZATION COOLING principle: reality (simplified) this will surely work..! ….maybe… • A delicate technology and integration problem Need to build a realistic prototype and verify that it works (i.e. cools a beam) Difficulties lay in particular in • operating RF cavities in Mag. Field, • interface with SC magnets and LH2 absorbers What performance can one get? Difficulty:affordable prototype of cooling section only cools beam by 10%, while standard emittance measurements barely achieve this precision. Solution: measure the beam particle-by-particle RF Noise!! state-of-the-art particle physics instrumentation will test state-of-the-art accelerator technology.

  6. 10% cooling of 200 MeV/c muons requires ~ 20 MV of RF single particle measurements => measurement precision can be as good as D ( e out/e in ) = 10-3 never done before either… Coupling Coils 1&2 Spectrometer solenoid 1 Matching coils 1&2 Matching coils 1&2 Spectrometer solenoid 2 Focus coils 1 Focus coils 2 Focus coils 3 m Beam PID TOF 0 Cherenkov TOF 1 RF cavities 1 RF cavities 2 Downstream particle ID: TOF 2 Cherenkov Calorimeter VariableDiffuser Liquid Hydrogen absorbers 1,2,3 Incoming muon beam Trackers 1 & 2 measurement of emittance in and out

  7. Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment Aims: demonstrate feasibility and performance of a section of cooling channel Final PID: TOF Cherenkov Calorimeter Main challenges: RF in magnetic field! 10-3 meas. of emittance Safety issues 4T spectrometer II Status: Approved at RAL(UK) First beam: 04-2007 Funded in: UK,CH,JP,NL,US Further requests: CH,It,JP,UK Cooling cell (~10%) b=5-45cm, liquid H2, RF 4T spectrometer I TOF Single-m beam ~200 MeV/c Some prototyping: 200MHz RF cavity with beryllium windows Liquid-hydrogen absorbers Scintillating-fiber tracker

  8. Challenges of MICE: (these things have never been done before) 1. Operate RF cavities of relatively low frequency (200 MHz) at high gradient (16 MV/m) in highly inhomogeneous magnetic fields (1-3 T) dark currents (can heat up LH2), breakdowns 2. Hydrogen safety (substantial amounts of LH2 in vicinity of RF cavities) 3. Emittance measurement to relative precision of 10-3 in environment of RF bkg requires low mass and precise tracker low multiple scattering redundancy to fight dark-current-induced background excellent immunity to RF noise complete set of PID detectors And… 4. Obtaining funding for R&D towards a facility that is not (yet) in the plans of a major lab

  9. encouraging signs from CERN… SPC CERN’s Scientific Policy Committee (fixed target committee)

  10. From RAL: Letter to Ken Long (spokesperson of UKNF Collaboration) to initiate the ‘scoping study’

  11. MICE is an international effort from the start.

  12. PHASE I m implementation in steps physics-based: understanding of systematics all configurations successfully matched optically - STEP I: April 2007 STEP II: October 2007 STEP III: 2008 PHASE II STEP IV: 2008 STEP V 2008? STEP VI aim: 2009

  13. The MICE collaboration (slides to be added for organization and charter)

  14. Universite Catholique de Louvain,Belgium • University of Sofia,Bulgaria • INFN Bari, INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, INFN Genova, • INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Legnaro, INFN Milano, INFN Napoli, INFN Padova, • INFN Roma III,INFN Trieste,Italy • KEK, Osaka University,Japan • NIKHEF, The Netherlands • CERN • Geneva University, Paul Scherrer InstitutSwitzerland • Brunel University Edinburgh Glasgow Liverpool ICL London Oxford Darsbury RAL SheffieldUK • Argonne National Laboratory. Brookhaven National Laboratory, Fairfield University, University of Chicago, Enrico Fermi Institute, Fermilab, Illinois Institute of Technology, • Jefferson Lab, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, UCLA, Northern Illinois University, University of Iowa, University of Mississippi, UC Riverside, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUSA THE MICE COLLABORATION 140 collaborators

  15. The specificities of MICE: MICE is a collaboration of accelerator physicists and particle physics experimenters MICE is international Hardware responsibilities equate committment to provide specific items There exist collaborations for specific items: ex: Tracker is a collaboration between UK, US, Japan absorbers are a US-Japan collaboration There are no collaboration-wide shared expenses as could be found in large experimental collaborations There exist no common fund or author tax at this point. Very few MOU’s have been signed so far -- RF sources from Berkeley -- PSI solenoid The software, analysis etc… are freely shared items.

  16. Internal MICE Organization numbers of meetings per year MICE charter voted in 2004. Technical Board 12 Project manager (Paul Drumm) management of the project reports to EB +spokesperson +deputy +software coord. +level 2 WBS coordinators enforces design and safety reviews change control documents exp.design 3 Executive Board 12 spokesperson(A.B) deputy Project manager software coord. analysis coord. 2 reps from UK,US,EU,JP manages collaboration life nominates personels prepares decisions for CB Collaboration board 1 rep/institute elects spokesperson reviews EB activity votes on decisions prepared by EB chair: Dan Kaplan IIT 3 collaboration meetings/yr 1 video conf/month Speakers bureau ~3 Editorial board ~3 12 Analysis forum sollicits talks at conferences and proposes speakers controls quality of publications proposes publication policy discusses how to achieve the physics goals of the experiment

  17. External MICE organization CCLRC MICE Project Board MICE stakeholders Board MICE Funding Agencies Committee manages issues concerning host lab. and its relations with the collaboration MICE collaboration Today is the first MICE Funding Agency Committee this constitutes an important step in our development. We expect to report regularly and would like to make sure that data are reported in the right format.

  18. The MICE partners: I. UK MICE-UK (Spokesperson Ken Long, ICL) is composed of the following institutions CCLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory CCLRC Daresbury Laboratory University groups: Brunel, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Imperial College London, Liverpool, Oxford,Sheffield The UK groups have been extremely successful at promoting the Neutrino Factory in the UK. (NUFACT02, UKNF collaboration, etc…) They obtained a grant of 7.5 M£ from he Office of Science and Technology. Contributions Host experiment, provide project management (Paul Drumm, RAL) for phase I: Infrastructure: target, beam line, experimental hall, supports, controls, control room, etc… R&D to assemble RF power sources R&D towards liquid hydrogen infrastructure and storage system Tracker (in collaboration with US and Japan) for phase II: Focus coils (in absorber module) Completion of RF sources and liquid hydrogen system and remaining infrastructure

  19. The MICE partners: I. UK MICE UK has been fully funded for phase I: 9.7M£ OST grant + PPARC Funding for phase II (3.3 M£) will need to be placed in 2006. Additional project envisaged: construction of one prototype RF cavity in collaboration between industrial partners CCLRC and university groups Independent funding opportunity exists.

  20. The MICE partners: II. US US: The Neutrino Factory and Muon Collider Collaboration founded in 1998 spokespersons: S. Geer, R.B.Palmer Project Manager: Mike Zisman (also deputy spokesperson of MICE) partners: BNL, Fermilab, LBNL + university groups. NFMCC has pioneered the concept of MICE and developped, through the MUCOOL program, the critical components. The MICE cooling cell is an improved version of the cooling cell used in « study II ». The critical remaining R&D consists in tests of 201 MHz RF cavity in magnetic fields to understand whether the needed RF fields can be reached or what needs to be done to reach them. RF cavity n0 1 is built and arrived at FNAL early september 05, for testing. Initially the tests can be done in the stray field of another magnet, but the real magnet (‘coupling coil’) will be needed for a definitive test.

  21. The MICE partners: II. US (Ctd) The NFMCC is funded at the level of 3.6 M$/ year by DOE in addition it received for MICE specifically: -- an NSF grant of 100k$ a year for the first three years -- an MRI grant of 750k$ from NSF this has to cover -- the personnel for studies and engineering and tests -- travel and other consummables -- the hardware construction for MUCOOL, MICE and the recently approved target experiment at CERN ( nTOF11 a.k.a. MERIT)

  22. The MICE partners: II. US (Ctd) The collaboration has proposed the following budget for MICE and MUCOOL: This will cover the following hardware contributions to MICE – 2 spectrometer solenoids – 2 RFCC modules(1 for step 5, 2 for step 6) – 1 Cherenkov detector (upstream) – a portion of tracker detector (electronics) – 6 absorber windows (plus spares) Hardware cost of these items for step 5 is 3.9M$, for step 6 is 5.3M$ The funding profile pushes step 3 to oct. 2008 and delays MUCOOL solutions to be found: cash advance from RAL (under investigation) provision of coupling coil/RF cavities from other collaborators

  23. The MICE partners: III. Japan Osaka University KEK The Japanese team have been remarkably reliable collaborators in MUCOOL and MICE. Osaka has also a project PRISM for preparation of a monochromatic muon beam using an FFAG. Responsibilities in MICE Liquid H2 absorbers (R&D and MICE absorbers) Fiber tracker (R&D, fibers) hosted the fiber tracker beam test. funding: Japan-US collaboration (100k$ per year) grant request for future neutrino beams is being prepared (together with HyperKamiokande R&D) for phase II about 100 OkuYens (~1M$) to be submitted in november 2005.

  24. The MICE partners: IV. Switzerland PSI: PSI provides a (used) beam solenoid. The cost of a new one would be estimated at ~3MCHF. The solenoid has been prepared and is ready to leave PSI. Crygenics did not come with it and have to be provided by RAL (UK phase I) Geneva University: dedicated funding request was refused in 2004. Rolling grant is approved  ~80 kCHF/Yr for hardware and consummables funding for 1 PhD student and one postdoc is granted. Responsibility: data acquisition, trigger. There is a possibility that a coupling coil could be built in Switzerland, a bid being prepared for 1MCHF/3 years. If successful this would bring the MUCOOL or MICE coupling coil earlier in time. Bulgarian collaboration: Swiss National Foundation has granted a Institutional Partnership and Joint Research project with Sofia University. Several Bulgarian researchers. Will contribute to TOF and trigger.

  25. The MICE partners: V. Italy Initially a large group ofexperimenters from the HARP collaboration + an accelerator group from Frascati + an engineering group from Genoa was hoping to bid for the spectrometer solenoids (and contributed substantially to the design) but this was discouraged by INFN R&D and design work for the solenoids, the time of flight and calorimeter was nevertheless carried out. Bid was submitted in July 2005 for detectors (Time-of-Flight and calorimeter) for about 1M€. This is the main missing component of phase I. Hope is that this first step will be followed by further participation from accelerator physicists in Italy.

  26. The MICE partners: VI. NIKHEF Amsterdam, Nijmegen will contribute the magnetic sensors to the experiment. + 1 PhD student. The MICE partners: VI. Louvain G. Gregoire has participated actively in MICE and performed the design of the downstream Cherenkov. (value 250 k€, the phototubes would be donated by the Trieste group from the CHOOZ experiment) GG has now retired and it is not clear that the group will be able to continue. We are investigating the effect of having no Cherenkov on the performance of the downstream particle identification system

  27. The MICE partners: VII. CERN The present for of MICE was largely conceived by the CERN group. Following budget cuts end 2001 the contribution of CERN was reduced to the following: CERN has earmarked used RF material able to assemble 2RF power sources providing 2MW each (this is enough to power one of the RF modules). This will remain the property of CERN. a request has been placed to the CERN AB-head for refurbishing this equipement (cost: 170 kCHF) MICE is CERN recognized experiment RE11.

  28. Summary: at this point MICE (PhaseI) is an approved and funded project in 5 countries -- UK: 9.7M£ -- USA: funding from the NFMCC +RF source + NSF grant 300k$ + MRI grant 750k$. The NFMCC budget plan for spectrometer solenoids, tracker electronics and RFCC modules. -- Japan: US-Japan ~$100k/yr, UK-Japan (travel funds) (+ 1M$ requested) -- Switzerland: PSI solenoid + Uni-Geneva-NSwissF (80KCHF/yr)+ 1 PDA+1PhDS -- Netherlands: Mag probes (in production!) + 1 PhDS + Proposal submitted in Italy (TOF, Calorimeter)

  29. Conclusions: • the MICE experiment is scientifically approved and recognized internationally • it has a structure and a charter. • 2. the collaboration is making excellent progress in all fronts: • simulations • R&D • engineering • prototyping • construction • 3. the funding for phase I is largely complete and will be essentially complete • if the INFN bid succeeds-- only Cherenkov II would remain a question. • 4. the funding for phase II is being prepared. We have a baseline solution for • MICE up to step V and we are working to assure that step VI can be performed • in good time for the decision making year 2010

More Related