mice wrap-up

MICE Wrap-up

Michael S. ZismanCenter for Beam Physics

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

MICE Collaboration Meeting—OsakaMarch 3, 2006

March 3, 2006 Wrap-up and Action Items-Zisman

2

Outline

•Introduction•Meeting Goals•Meeting Checklist•Items from Technical Board•Beam Line Issues•Cooling Channel Issues•Detector Issues•Simulation Issues•Controls/DAQ Issues•Final Remarks


3

Introduction (1)•Progress on many fronts is encouraging

— PSI solenoid arrival— spectrometer solenoid purchase moving forward— 201-MHz cavity testing now under way (28 kW; 1.3 MV/m)— RF power source refurbishment under way at Daresbury— asymmetric heating of windows estimated and looks okay— progress on tracker design and definition of PID approach— hydride bed ordered (delivery in May)— new group (Kyoto) accepted into collaboration

•Plans for upcoming MICE meetings— June 8-11, 2006 at Fermilab (changed due to EPAC)— October 8-11, 2006 at RAL

o in future consider two meetings at RAL, one elsewhere

ACTION-CERN

ACTIONS

ACTION


4

Cavity Ready for Testing

4616HT power supply being built at Daresbury for May 2006 test

201-MHz cavity at Fermilab MTA


5

Introduction (2)•Plans for upcoming ISS meetings

— April 25-28, 2006 at RAL (with BENE)o Accelerator Group workshop April 21-24, 2006 (also RAL)

— August 21-22, 2006 at UC-Irvine

•Need to make Video Conferences more effective— provide expanded system status reports in more formalized

“news” section— exercise proper phone etiquette

o know where mute button is!

•Web issues— new hardware and software coming

o automated uploading (works for “just in time” delivery)— need to give Yağmur more than 1-day notice to set up

meetings

A real strength of our collaboration...thanks to Yağmur!

ACTION


6

Goals for Meeting

•Where are we on preparations for Steps 1 and 2?

•Issues— beam line, target, optics, tuning/correction algorithms,

diffuser— TOF, CKOVs, MUCAL, tracker, spectrometer solenoids— trigger, DAQ, controls/monitoring— software (PID, reconstruction)— analysis (run plan, “beam” reconstruction, emittance,

transmission)— installation/cabling

- STEP I:

April 2007 = 394 days away!

STEP II: October 2007

PHASE I


7

Meeting Checklist - Step 1

•Beam Line— optics for full range of emittances and energies (almost)— orbit-correction and collimator requirements (under way)— rapid-changeover diffuser solution (done)

o define required no. of different thicknesses (under way)

•Step 1— hall layout and cabling (first pass starting)— fix positions of TOF0 and TOF1 (almost) TOF0 in or out restricted area?— establish MUCAL configuration (after Frascati test)can already establish dimensions— determine need for CKOVs (almost; needs documentation)— electronics for TOF, MUCAL — trigger, DAQ strategy, controls/monitoring software (progress)— run plan and analysis approach

ACTIONS


8

Meeting Checklist - Steps 2, 3

•Step 2— articulate case for TOF2 (under way) — initiate spectrometer solenoid bid process (almost)— understand tracker light losses (almost)— analysis issues (making progress)

o determination of emittance, transmission, tolerances, betas

•Step 3— simulation of systematics— optics, including scraping issues


9

Meeting Checklist - Steps 4+•Step 4

— H2 safety review response (started; process defined)

— controls and monitoring issues (under way)o RF voltage, LH2 thickness, alignment determination

— choice of cryocooler (done)— RF status

o power, window heating, installation issues, LN cooling (under way)

o test program progress (launched)

•Miscellaneous— video conference frequency

o back to biweekly?— training and certification requirements (planning begun)— offices for MICE personnel (planning begun)— MOUs with RAL/CCLRC— as always, FUNDING


10

Items from Technical Board (1)

•Power requirements need to be defined precisely— especially cryocoolers (about 10 kW per unit)— need efficient operation plan to stay below 700 kW (if possible)

•Likewise for water requirements

•Target test schedule is tight— prefer to be testing vibration, vacuum, reliability issues in

March, not May— need milestones to monitor readiness for testing— investigate whether commercial solution for 40 A

programmable current source is availableo need a spec on drive system (what is required, not how to do it!)

— additional effort would help (maybe Lancaster group?)


11


•Need to “freeze” beam line front end— hold review by mid-April — generate standard files for G4Beamline

•Need sign-off on main features of Hall layout— ask for written list of objections/omissions— aim for formal sign-off at next Tech Board meeting

•Miscellaneous issues— hold review of tracker by “referees” by end of April (at ISS

meeting?)— decide on front-end electronics by end of August (after

NuFact06)o awaits Frascati test in Julyo approve by RAL Collaboration Board meeting

ACTIONS


12


•Miscellaneous issues (cont’d)— consider choice of ALICE on-line system, if allowed— give CERN a milestone for delivery of refurbished RF

equipmento need equipment by end of 2007

— organize proper HAZOP with external help by April— post reviewers report (need permission to do so)— post schedule for design and safety reviews

o get okay from all groups— encourage the submission of change requests at early stage

o details come in subsequent change note if approved— put all of Phase 1 activities into critical path


13

Beam Line Issues (1)•Get safety sign-off on shielding approach by April

— can CKOV1 shielding be reversed to avoid trapping detector?

•Investigate matching to different solenoid fields rather than fixed 4 T— not high priority

•Understand what happens to collimated particles

•Explore use of ISIS target station 2 correctors— can we piggyback on their order?

•Define tolerances (alignment, field strength, field quality) for all elements


14

Beam Line Issues (2)•Develop optimizer for beam line design

•Define diagnostic needs for beam line— need to beef up optics effort

•Target issues— try to complete target system tests at RAL before end of May

o carry out full test in ISIS in June— interlock “park” mode to be sure mechanism is withdrawn

from beam— evaluate position reproducibility requirements

o is performance worse with 40 A drive than with 5 A?— put time gap in test run (e.g., 1 week) to assess

reproducibility— resolve engineering issues and develop reliable milestones— complete materials evaluation for vacuum compatibility


15

Beam Line Issues (3)•Validate 200 mm clear diameter for diffuser mechanism

•Assess options in case of failure of changing mechanism— should be okay to disassemble and repair on bench if spare

parts available— need to be able to assemble mechanism accurately

o engineering solution must ensure this

•Need indicator to verify which diffuser is in

•Revisit CKOV1 shielding (put hole upstream, not downstream)


16

Cooling Channel Issues (1)

•Magnets— decide on AFC changes and formalize (e.g., using cooling

pipes rather than liquid cooling)o is this needed for all magnets?

— formalize maximum force design values (50 70 tons)o implies bigger heat leako add low-field polarity check to operational procedures

— understand calculation results on effects of Match Coil thickness changes

— decide on power supply specs (300 350 A)o need to watch out for “scope creep”

— formalize adoption of pulse-tube coolers rather than GMo requires vertical mounting and shielded rotary valveo prefer use of pulse tube cooler for H2 R&D system!o note that compressors also need to be away from magnetic field


17

Cooling Channel Issues (2)•Magnets (cont’d)

— decide on proper interface between AFC module and absorbero use dummy absorbero use pipe template for absorber fabrication

— design must be done by end of 2006o develop milestones to reach this result

•H2 R&D system— complete and document formal HAZOP process— evaluate practicality of non-flammable MLI— define credible worst-case accident scenario— avoid creating hydrogen zone in experimental area— finalize response to reviewers and send to Tech Board for

approvalo review by Design and Safety groupo approve by Exec Boardo got approval from Collaboration Board on this approach


18

Cooling Channel Issues (3)•RF

— method to measure voltage at 1% level is not in hando likely to require beam-based measurements to achieve this


19

Detector Issues (1)

•Avoid late-night technical discussions

•Need to resolve—and get buy-in—on technical decisions— sandwich calorimeter vs. KLOE design

o do we need one KL layer, or all plastic?— need for CKOV2 (almost ready; probably not needed)

o need to document case better— design for CKOV1 (ring imaging?)— seems late days to be doing all this

o what is needed to converge?

•Do not preclude Step 2.5 case— use reentrant design rather than welded ring— can we pre-qualify Japanese magnet vendors


20

Detector Issues (2)•Wrap up spectrometer spec by mid-March

•Need plan for final magnetic mapping with field sensors

•Be aware of delays associated with large purchases

•Need to pay more attention to QA/QC— wiring errors— connector misalignments— build a fifth station using full QA procedures— other detectors need to show similar discipline

•Need to develop analysis software— incorporate test beam QA techniques into G4MICE to use in the

actual experiment


21

Detector Issues (3)•Understand 201 MHz RF backgrounds

— has implications for operation of AFE IIt board (count rate capability)

— MTA tests with Coupling Coil would go a long way toward answering which regime we’ll be in

•Check need for radius on spectrometer solenoid end plate

•Reserve 2 m clear space around spectrometer solenoid (in “out” position) for UV-free tent during installation— mark footprint on Hall layout drawings

•Consider need for dual Fe shields at TOF2 to lower Br

— a non-trivial perturbation on present design, if needed


22

Detector Issues (4)

•Evaluate possible benefits of “almost-equal” station spacing

•Evaluate need for, and availability of, 60 Hz power for VLPC cryocoolers

•Understand light loss for all stations

•Do we want to use tracker without solenoid in initial beam line tests?

•Finalize positions of TOF0, CKOV1, MUCAL— fix size and segmentation of MUCAL


23

Simulation Issues•Evaluate Step 3A cooling measurement for thinner absorber (5% rather than 13%)

•Understand predicted lack of cooling with large ΔE— consultation with Palmer and Fernow recommended (at RAL in April,

or earlier at BNL?)

•Evaluate use of TOF2 to constrain timing at RF location

•Resolve discrepancy between ICOOL acceptance and analytic estimate

•Need run plan for Steps 1, 2 from Analysis Forum— also “beam” reconstruction and emittance determination techniques— collimation of beam to improve purity/generate pencil beam


24

Controls/DAQ Issues

•Develop trigger scheme

•Specify/evaluate all required hardware, especially front-end electronics— assemble a test system

•Finalize DAQ scheme at Fermilab (CM15); approve at RAL (CM16)— architecture: PC + VME + Ethernet

•Need PID + track reconstruction algorithms for Step 1— also front-end electronics specification (late!)


25

Final Remarks•We continue to make progress but some things are moving more slowly than hoped

•Be vigilant about opportunities to publicize MICE— muon program got good press at HEPAP AARD Subpanel— need to think about journal publication(s)

•MICE management continues to be grateful for the hard work of the collaboration

•Now 394 days to target date for first beam

•See you at Fermilab

mice wrap-up

Documents

installation issues

monitoring issues

beam lineoptics

tracker design

beam reconstruction

mucal trigger

mucal configuration

upcoming mice meetingsjune