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

1MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005

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 themplease interupt if I forgot something.


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 !!!


- STEP I: spring 2007

STEP II: summer 2007?

STEP III: winter 2008?

STEP IV: spring 2008?

STEP V: fall 2008?

STEP VI:STEP VI: 20092009

what is our schedule now?


1. 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)

convener is Wing Lau

if MICE members havea concern about safety they should *scream*and tell Wing Lau (cc: Paul Drumm) immediately.

SAFETY is EVERY MICE’s business

my impression: ALL production reviews pertinent to PHASE I will have to be passed ***before end 2005*** …!


Process

Detail Design & Safety…

Develop Concepts & Design, Prepare documentation

fit for purpose Documents ok

Acceptance

Pre-manufacture

Manufacture & Install

RehearsalSupport

Wing Design & Safety Group

Agree ProcedureWe are here!

Document Review

Review

FINALDocument

Audit

Operate

RAL Review

RAL

Agree when ready

Agree when ready

From Document... toPresentation by Video?

Task LeaderTask Members

Task LeaderTask MembersTask Leader

Task Members

Invitees?Review

Advice?

Audit & Advise

Audit & Advise


Task Matrix

# Package Sub-Task Review Stage

Concept

Ready for Final Design

…

1 beam & related infrastructure

Engineering;Radiation;Physics design

2 R&D Hydrogen (AFC module)

RF

3 Detectors Spectrometer solenoid & SciFi

ToF, Ckov

4 Phase 2 infrastructure

Expands 1

5 Phase 2 Cooling Channel

Linked to 2

6 Controls & Monitoring

(belongs to phase I !)


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

…..…..


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!


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 differences between step 2 and 3 for the disposition of the downstream (or upstream detectors) and shielding needs design(or upstream detectors) and shielding needs design

interface between shielding plate and tracker (and diffuser!) still needs design work.

MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005 10

TRD: Paul’s guilt

it is still not finished

pride

it will keep evolving and MICE documentation will grow around it!

TRD


TRACKER

1. MICE note is available!

2. KEK Beam test testing is part of 1) team building and 2) making sure that the detector that will be delivered really works.

aims of the test: without Mag. field1. basic performance test2. light yield (VLPC vs PMT?) overall efficiency (with defocused beam)3. position resolution (alignment error) 4. 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’


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-- …….


3.Tracker Performance

superb job of simulations by Malcolm Chris et all software groupexample 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.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


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!


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)

Makoto Yoshida

Need to collect similar information for each piece of MICE producing informationand compare to tracker information size.

NOT ZERO SUPPRESSED


An idea of the DAQ architecture

Bit3

SA

Se

q#

1

SA

Se

q#

2

SA

Se

q#

3

SA

Se

q#

4

SE

RD

ES

#1

SE

RD

ES

#2

SE

RD

ES

#3

SE

RD

ES

#4

SE

RD

ES

#5

SE

RD

ES

#6

SE

RD

ES

#7

SE

RD

ES

#8

VL

PC

#1

L

VL

PC

#1

R

VL

PC

#2

L

VL

PC

#2

R

VL

PC

#3

L

VL

PC

#3

R

VL

PC

#4

L

VL

PC

#4

R

TrackerCollectorUpstream

TrackerCollectorDownstream

TrackerBuilder

PIDBuilder

BeamBuilder

MICEBuilder

MICEStorage

MICEControl

Bit3

SA

Se

q#

1

SA

Se

q#

2

SA

Se

q#

3

SA

Se

q#

4

SE

RD

ES

#1

SE

RD

ES

#2

SE

RD

ES

#3

SE

RD

ES

#4

SE

RD

ES

#5

SE

RD

ES

#6

SE

RD

ES

#7

SE

RD

ES

#8

TrackerControl

Bit3

15

53

15

53

TrackerSlow Ctrl

VL

PC

#1

L

VL

PC

#1

R

VL

PC

#2

L

VL

PC

#2

R

VL

PC

#3

L

VL

PC

#3

R

VL

PC

#4

L

VL

PC

#4

R

Upstream Tracker Downstream Tracker4096ch

4kBytes/event

8MBytes/spill

4kBytes/event

4MBytes/spill

CryosatControl


To be determined

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


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


position of the diffuser lead plate and associated mechanicsposition of the diffuser lead plate and associated mechanics

Clearly this is an issue that needs to be solved better specification: changing diffuser should require less than 30 minutes

clearly came out from the discussion in tracker parallel session that thepresent 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


equilibrium emittance = 2.5 mm.radian

curves for 23 MV, 3 full absorbers, particles on crest

How many points do we need on this curve?

guex: 1.5 X0=? 2.5 X0=? 4 6 10 mm.rad


Optics discussion1. all solutions that are more or less orthodox have been matched. (Bravo Ulisse!)2. still need to understand mismatch for off-momentum muons. 3.3. The spectrometers should be at a distance of 800mm for stage IIIThe spectrometers should be at a distance of 800mm for stage III4. how many leads for the focus pairs?

MRI MAGNETSMRI 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 LongGE 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?


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!


SoftwareFantastic 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 bugsNew tests for PID detectors Rewriten the calorimeter from scratch in two weeksImplemented 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: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 groupneed for physics-oriented discussions (working group?)Users are eventually expected to be able to write analysis code. physics tools particle ID, tracking, emittance calculation


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)


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


- STEP I: spring 2007

STEP II: summer 2007

STEP III: winter 2008

STEP IV: spring 2008

STEP V: fall 2008

STEP VI: 2009

Phases are funding defined

PHASE I

PHASE II


InfrastructureDetails 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?

designmagnificient 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


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.


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.


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.


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 2005Most should be similar to PAC05at least two weeks before 1 june with backup on 15 JunePresentation on 1 June mandatory

Next MICE collaboration meetingat Frascati 26-29 June

Palladino (local) and Kaplan +Bonesini? (agenda) will organize


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!


MERCI!

Mike Zisman and Tom Gallant for excellent organizationbuses, sweets, coffee and pizzas

All MICE members for attendance great presentations, hard and intelligent work

Paul Drumm and technical team for fantastic organization&foresightthat will get us to goal safely

Special congratulations to UK colleagues Ken Long et al (and our godfather K.Peach!)for getting experiment through gateways