PID activities 1. Summary of work/activities since last CM in Berkeley 2. PID parallel session in Frascati 3. Topics specific to each subdetector CKOV1.

PID activities

1. Summary of work/activities since last CM in Berkeley

2. PID parallel session in Frascati

3. Topics specific to each subdetector

CKOV1CKOV2

EmCal

4. Issues common to all PID systems

TOF

Gh. Grégoire

MICE collaboration meeting CM12, Frascati 28 June 2005

Phone meetings

Since the PID summary talk at Berkeley in 14-17 Feb. 2005, we held phone conferences about PID on

• March 1

• March 31

• April 13

• May 2

• May 11

• May 25

• June 15

Losses in the cooling channel

CKOV1

TOF

Losses in the end system vs beam emittance Implementation of CKOVs in G4MICETuning EmCal cuts CKOV2 photon collection

Task milestone tables

D&S updates + Milestone tables

Design&Safety issues

TRD update

D&S status

CKOV1 design ideasCKOV2 photon collection

EmCal response

CKOV2 electron efficiency

CKOV1 design issues

Emcal simulation 2

PID sessions in Frascati

Gh. Grégoire

CKOV1

TOF

MuCal theory

CKOV2

MuCal practice

PID in G4MICE

L. CremaldiM. Bonesini

GG

R. SandströmL. Tortora

S. Kahn

1. Parallel session on Sun 26 Jun

2. Plenary session on Mon 27 Jun

EmCal summary A. Tonazzo

TOF M. Bonesini

3

3. Parallel session on Mon 27 Jun pm (software)

Conclusions of CM 11

1.

2.

3.

4.

4

Followup from CM 11

This is rather well advancedThanks to P. Drumm, the structure of the TRD chap. 8 has been divided into subsections to allow for easy modifications by the various groups.

1. PID updates of the TRD

2. Realistic drawings of the subdetectors

Converging process underway although time is passing by and audit/construction deadlines seriously approach

3. Tools for the final design

« Field maps, Geant4 particle files, full re-evaluation of the performances »

All are either available or well underway although there are sometimes difficulties to reach the PID requirements of MICE

4. Requirements for DAQ + Controls

Happy to see it progressing !

5

TRD

CKOV1

DAQ & controls

TOF

Conclusions presented by Maurizio Bonesini

design for TOF stations well understood

only some points to be defined connected with choice of size of TOF1/TOF2 PMTs (1.5” vs 2”) and divider for TOF0 PMTs (booster vs active divider)

define electronics chain (TDC for high incoming rate): probable choice CAEN V1290

define the high-demanding calibration system (mainly laser based)

test a prototype asap at LNF BTF, together with EMCAL

Including detailed cost estimates

6

Questions/comments raised about TOFs

• Possibility to reduce the vertical size of TOF0 ?

Reducing its thickness

While keeping a good light collection

It needs beforehand a full understanding of the beam spot at the position of TOF0

• What about the rate capabilities of the PMTs and the proposed electronics with random hits instead of uniformly time-spaced laser pulses?

P. Soler: proposal to perform « real world »  tests in the synchrotron vault at RAL

(Associated Dead time ?)

• Why using a complicated laser system for calibration ?

7

CKOV1

Two conceptual designs presented

Talk presented by Lucien Cremaldi

8

The quest of a radiator …

Range of indices to get it pion blind at 300 MeV/c

9

Questions/comments about CKOV1

But the responses for pions and muons overlap at the high-momentum end for all « reasonable » radiators

• for not commercially available materials (like aerogel with n=1.12)except

• cryogenic liquids (Liq. H2 with n=1.123) bringing their own (big) set of problems

Aerogel n=1.12

Smaller indices

Smaller light yield

Light collection

in addition to the challenging engineering, safety and operation issues …

10

Simulation of CKOV1

Talk presented by Steve Kahn

11

CKOV1 efficiency

P=240 MeV/c

Light collection efficiency or particle detection efficiency ?

12

CKOV2

Aerogel box

Front mirror

Particle entrance window

Particle exit window

Back mirror

Optical windows, Winston cones, PM’s

+ various small elements (clamping pieces for windows)

Talk presented by GG

13

CKOV2 performance

Electronic Threshold

(p.e.)n = 1.02 n = 1.04

0 0.002 0.002

1 0.011 0.003

2 0.214 0.025

3 0.513 0.146

Everything is summarized in the electron detection inefficiency table

14

Questions/comments about CKOV2

• Study of electron detection efficiency based on Tom’s particle files

• Mechanical/optical design understood and optimized (hopefully)

• Simulation: nowhere, not yet started

On behalf of Captain Vittorio

1. Choice of a good internal geometry

2. Proposal to use n=1.04 aerogel

15

EmCal

Talks presented by A. Tonazzo, L. Tortora

Detailed descriptions from concept, to design, construction and simulation

Including detailed cost estimates16

EmCal simulation and performances

Talk presented by R. Sandström

10 mm rad emittance

Muon momentum centered around 200 MeV/c ( 30 MeV/c)

NN training

Performance for subsystemsAssumption target =

efficiency > 99.9 %

purity > 99.8 %

Achieved!

17

Questions/comments about EmCal

• The simulation should be extended up to muon momenta as high as 300 MeV/c.

• The beam particles should come from a full simulation of the MICE beam line.

• Influence of the fibre free zone at the edges of adjacent modules/sectors

• Does the inclusion of CKOV2 input improve the PID performances at higher momenta ?

18

Issues common to all PID systems

1. Full documentation and update of the TRD

Certainly easier today for TOF, CKOV2 and EmCal

2. Internal audit regarding designs and safety

It is an integral and unavoidable duty for the acceptance of our designs

Milestone tables, GANTT charts, supports, DAQ building elements, ancillaries (cables, access, supports) …

3. ...before going before the (external) RAL audit committee and getting hopefully a green light for construction

Many most helpful persons are at hand and willing to help you !

19