technical proposal - fair-center.de [ ] date: 15.01.2005 technical proposal for the design,...

Technical Proposal

for the Design, Construction, Commissioning and Operation of MATS

(within the NUSTAR Collaboration)

Precision Measurements of Very Short-Lived Nuclei using an Advanced Trapping System

for Highly-Charged Ions

Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz January 15, 2005

LOI Identification Nº 8 [ * obtained from the FAIR project team] FAIR- PAC: make cross

where applicable APPA [ ]

NUSTAR [ X ] QCD [ ] Date: 15.01.2005 Technical Proposal for the Design, Construction, Commissioning and

Operation of MATS Abstract:

The mass and its inherent connection with the nuclear binding energy is a fundamental property of a nuclide, a unique ”fingerprint”. Thus, precise mass values are important for a variety of applications, ranging from nuclear-structure studies like the investigation of shell closures and the onset of deformation, test of nuclear mass models and mass formulas, to tests of the weak interaction and of the Standard Model. The required relative accuracy ranges from 10-5 to below 10-8 for radionuclides, which most often have half-lives well below 1 s. Substantial progress in Penning trap mass spectrometry has made this method a prime choice for precision measurements on rare isotopes. The technique has the potential to provide high accuracy and sensitivity even for very short-lived nuclides. Furthermore, ion traps can be used and offer advantages for precision decay studies.

With MATS (Precision Measurements of very short-lived nuclei using an Advanced Trapping System for highly-charged ions) at FAIR we aim for applying both techniques to very short-lived radionuclides: High-precision mass measurements and in-trap conversion electron and alpha spectroscopy. The experimental setup of MATS is a unique combination of an electron beam ion trap for charge breeding, ion traps for beam preparation, and a high precision Penning trap system for mass measurements and decay studies.

For the mass measurements, MATS offers both a high accuracy potential and a high sensitivity. A relative mass uncertainty of 10-9 can be reached by employing highly-charged ions and a non-destructive Fourier-Transform-Ion-Cyclotron-Resonance (FT-ICR) detection technique on single stored ions. This accuracy limit is important for fundamental interaction tests, but also allows to study the fine structure of the nuclear mass surface with unprecedented accuracy, whenever required. The use of the FT-ICR technique provides true single ion sensitivity. This is essential to access isotopes that are produced with minimum rates and that very often are the most interesting ones. Instead of pushing for highest accuracy, the high charge state of the ions can also be used to reduce the storage time of the ions, hence making measurements on even shorter-lived isotopes possible.

Decay studies in ion traps will become possible with MATS. Novel spectroscopic tools for in-trap high-resolution conversion-electron and charged-particle spectroscopy from carrier-free sources will be developed, aiming e.g. at the measurements of quadrupole moments and E0 strengths. With the possibility of both high precision mass measurements of shortest-lived isotopes and decay studies, its high sensitivity and accuracy potential MATS is ideally suited to for the study of very exotic nuclides that are only produced at the FAIR facility. Spokesperson, email, telephone number: Dr. Klaus Blaum Institute of Physics University of Mainz [email protected] Phone: +49-6131-39-22883 Fax: +49-6131-39-25179

1

mailto:[email protected]

Members of the MATS Collaboration

BELGIUM

Paul-Henri Heenen B-1050 Bruxelles, Belgium, PNTPM, CP229, Universite Libre de Bruxelles

FRANCE

Georges Audi, Cyril Bachelet, David Lunney, Céline Guénaut, Michael Sewtz F-91405 Orsay/Paris, France, CSNSM-IN2P3,CNRS

FINLAND

Juha Äystö, Ari Jokinen, Iain Moore, Arto Nieminen F-Jyväskylä, Finland, Department of Physics, P.O. Box 35, FIN-40014 University of Jyväskylä

GERMANY

Alexander Herlert, Gerrit Marx, Lutz Schweikhard D-17487 Greifswald, Germany, Institute of Physics, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt University

Paul-Gerhard Reinhard D-91054 Erlangen, Germany, Institute of Theoretical Physics II, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg

Dietrich Beck, Michael Block, Hans Geissel, Frank Herfurth, Alban Kellerbauer, Yuri A. Litvinov, Yuri N. Novikov, Christoph Scheidenberger, Martin Winkler, Chabouh Yazidjian D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany, GSI

Klaus Blaum, Immanuel Bloch, Slobodan Djekic, Rafael Ferrer, Sebastian George, Susanne Kreim, Stefan Stahl, José Verdu, Christine Weber D-55099 Mainz, Germany, Institute of Physics, Johannes Gutenberg University

Wolfgang R. Plass D-35390 Gießen, Germany, Institute of Physics, Justus-Liebig University

Dietrich Habs, Sophie Heinz, Oliver Kester, Veli Kolhinen, Jerzy Szerypo, Peter G. Thirolf D-85748 Garching, Germany, Department of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians University München

Joachim Ullrich, José R. Crespo López-Urrutia D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany, MPI Kernphysik

Wilfried Nörtershäuser D-72076 Tübingen, Germany, Insitute of Physics, Eberhard-Karls University

INDIA

Amlan Ray Kolkata, Bidhanagar, India, Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, 1/AF

2

SWEDEN

Tomas Fritioff, Reinhold Schuch, Nagy Szilard S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden, SCFAB, Stockholm University

USA

Dieter Schneider US-CA 94550-9234 Livermore, USA, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Michael Bender, Georg Bollen, Milan Matos, Stefan Schwarz US-MI 48824-1321 East Lansing, USA, Michigan State University, NSCL

Spokesperson: Klaus Blaum [email protected] +49-6131-39-22883 Deputy: Frank Herfurth [email protected] +49-6159-71-1360 José R. Crespo [email protected] +49-6221-516-521 Contact @ GSI Frank Herfurth [email protected] +49-6159-71-1360

3





Figure of the proposed experimental setup:

4.5

m10.0 m

MPS

2.0

4.3

m4.

4 m

Test- ionsource

PreparationPenning trap

MeasurementPenning trap

EBIT

EBIT

m/q selection

Top View Ground Floor

Side View

Roof crane (2 ton)

HV Cage

HV Cage

HV Cage

Ground Floor

First Floor

HV Cage

Test- ionsource

Figure 1: Proposed high-precision Penning trap mass spectrometer and in-trap conversion electron

spectroscopy setup. For charge breeding an electron beam ion trap (EBIT) will be used.

4

Table of Contents

A Introduction and Overview……… ........................................................................................ 7 B Systems ................................................................................................................................... 14 1 Subsystems.............................................................................................................................. 14 1.1 Ion beam cooler and buncher .................................................................................................. 14 1.2 Charge Breeding electron beam ion trap (EBIT) .................................................................... 16 1.3 q/A Selection........................................................................................................................... 19 1.4 Preparation Penning trap ......................................................................................................... 21 1.5 Measurement Penning trap...................................................................................................... 23 1.6 Instrumentation for mass spectrometry................................................................................... 25 1.7 In-trap spectroscopy detectors................................................................................................. 27 2 Trigger, DACQ, Controls, On-line/Off-line Computing ........................................................ 29 3 Beam/Target Requirements..................................................................................................... 29 4 Physics Performance ............................................................................................................... 29 C Implementation and Installation ......................................................................................... 30 1 Cave and Annex Facilities, Civil Engineering, Cranes, Elevators, Air Conditioning

(Temperature and Humidity Stability requirements), Cooling, Gases.................................... 30 2 Detector –Machine Interface................................................................................................... 33 3 Assembly and installation ....................................................................................................... 33 D Commissioning ...................................................................................................................... 35 E Operation ............................................................................................................................... 35 F Safety ...................................................................................................................................... 36 G Organization and Responsibilities, Planning...................................................................... 37 H Relation to other Projects ..................................................................................................... 48 I Other issues............................................................................................................................ 48 J References and Acknowledgements..................................................................................... 49

5

Table of Figures

1 Proposed MATS setup .............................................................................................................. 4 2 Experimental test of ft-value corrections of superallowed β−decays ....................................... 8 3 Two-neutron separation energies in the vicinity of Z = 82 ....................................................... 9 4 Nuclear chart with the relative mass uncertainties of all known nuclides .............................. 12 5 Penning trap facilities worldwide............................................................................................ 13 6 Conceptual electrode layout of the LEBIT-buncher ............................................................... 14 7 Scheme of the Heidelberg EBIT design.................................................................................. 16 8 Charge breeding of Sn at 1.1 keV beam energy...................................................................... 17 9 Charge breeding of Sn at 6.4 keV beam energy...................................................................... 17 10 Sketch of the magnetic multi-passage spectrometer ............................................................... 19 11 Proposed high-precision measurement Penning trap .............................................................. 23 12 Instrumentation for mass spectrometry................................................................................... 25 13 In-trap electron conversion spectroscopy arrangement........................................................... 27 14 Achievable mass uncertainty................................................................................................... 30 15 Floor plan of the MATS setup ................................................................................................ 31

6

A Introduction and Overview: Physics cases and required precision:

The mass is a fundamental property of a nuclide, a unique “fingerprint”. Its measurement contributes to a variety of fundamental studies including tests of the Standard Model and the weak interaction. High-precision mass values allow identification problems between ground state and isomeric states to be solved and to resolve fine-structure effects on the mass surface. Furthermore nuclear masses or binding energies represent the sum of all nucleonic interactions and they can only be investigated and understood when high-precision mass values are available [Lunn2003]. Four physics cases shall be discussed here in more detail. In addition the application and advantage of in-trap conversion electron and alpha spectroscopy will be discussed.

Isomer resolution: An important issue in direct mass measurements is to resolve isomeric and ground states since

nearly one third of the nuclides in the nuclear chart have long-lived isomeric states with – in many cases – unknown excitation energies. For this, a very high resolving power of 106 and higher is needed [Schw2001]. Furthermore, it is possible to put isomeric states in order using high-resolution mass spectrometry or to prepare isomerically pure beam, as recently demonstrated in the case of 68Cu [Blau2004] and 70Cu [VanR2004]. An empirical formula for the resolving power is given by [Boll2001]: R = m / ∆m = νc / ∆νc (FWHM) ≈ 1.25·νc·TRF.

A resolving power of R ≈ 106 is reached in a Penning trap with B = 7 T for singly charged A = 100 ions with an excitation time of TRF ≈ 1 s (for sufficiently long half-lives). Even higher resolving powers can be reached by further increasing the RF-excitation time. In the case of short-lived nuclides, the resolving power will be limited by the half-life, but can be considerably improved with increased charge states since νc scales with q. To resolve e.g. the discrepancies between theoretical predictions and experimental data for the ground and first isomeric state in 131Sn [Foge1999], a resolving power of 107 is required. Test of the conserved vector current hypothesis and the unitarity of the CKM matrix:

The quark-mixing Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix V parameterises the weak charged current interactions of quarks. The Standard Model does not predict the content of the CKM matrix. The values of individual matrix elements are determined from weak decays, where the relevant quarks are involved.

However, the standard model requires the CKM matrix to be unitary. The presently only possible direct precision test of unitarity involves the top row of V, namely |Vud|2 + |Vus|2 + |Vub|2 = 1− ∆ . In the Standard Model ∆ is zero. The unitarity test fails by up to 2.7σ and the origin of ∆ is unclear. A deviation from unitarity has been found with nuclear β-decay [Town2003] and neutron-β-decay data [Abel2002]. Due to its large size, a determination of Vud is most important. As assessed by the Particle Data Group [Eide2004], the unitarity constraint pushes Vud about two to three standard deviations higher than the value obtained from experiments. With two recently published new determinations of the CKM parameter |Vus| using K+ [Sher2003] and KL decays [Alex2004], the value |Vud|2 + |Vus|2 + |Vub|2 is consistent with unitarity (0.003 ± 00016 [Sher2003] and 0.0018 ± 0.0019 [Alex2004]) but the new |Vus| values disagree by several sigma with the previous values and further investigation is needed.

A violation of unitarity in the first row of the CKM matrix is not permitted by the three-generation Standard Model. The data available so far do not preclude more than three generations; CKM matrix entries deduced from unitarity might be altered when the CKM matrix is expanded to accommodate more generations [Marc1996, Hagi2002]. A deviation ∆ has been related to concepts beyond the Standard Model, such as couplings to exotic fermions [Lang1988, Maal1990], to the

7

existence of an additional Z boson [Lang1992, Marc1987], to supersymmetry or to the existence of right-handed currents in the weak interaction [Deut1977]. A non-unitarity of the CKM matrix in models with an extended quark sector gives rise to an induced neutron electric dipole moment that can be within reach of the next generation of experiments [Liao2001].

The most precise value for the Vud element can be extracted from the vector coupling constant GV derived from the mean Ft value of superallowed nuclear β-decays, in conjunction with the Fermi coupling constant from µ-decay Gµ: Vud

2 = GV2 / Gµ

2. The experimental Ft value is expressed as:

Ft ≡ ft (1 + δR)(1 – δC) = K / (2|Vud|2 Gµ2 (1 + ∆R)) ,

where δR is the nucleus-dependent radiative correction, δC the isospin-symmetry-breaking correction, and ∆R the nucleus-independent radiative correction. Experimentally, Ft is accessible via the following measured quantities: the decay energy Q, the half-life T1/2, and the branching ratio R. The Q value enters to the fifth power into the calculation of the statistical rate function f and thus the masses of the mother and the daughter nuclei are needed with a precision of about 1x10-8 in order to reach a relative uncertainty of 0.1% on Ft. The uncertainty in the derivation of Vud is dominated by the uncertainties in the theoretical correction terms, and current nuclear experiments are focused on testing and refining those correction terms that depend on nuclear structure [Kell2004]. This is illustrated in Fig. 2, where the measured ft-values are compared to calculated ft-values derived from the mean Ft-value dividing it by the theoretical corrections (taken from the recent compilation of superallowed 0+ → 0+ nuclear β-decays by J.C. Hardy and I.S. Towner [Hard2004]). The width of the colored fields shows the theoretical uncertainties. The nine best-known cases 10C, 14O, 26mAl, 34Cl, 38mK, 42Sc, 46V, 50Mn, and 54Co show that several nuclei require improved measurements (of Q-values, half-lives or branching ratios) to reach the situation that the uncertainties are dominated by calculations. Two further series of 0+ nuclei present themselves: For even-Z, Tz = -1 decays 22Mg [Mukh2004] and 34Ar [Herf2001a] have been studied and new cases like 18Ne, 26Si, 30S, 38Ca, and 42Ti should be studied. For the odd-Z, Tz = 0 cases there should be new decays besides 74Rb [Kell2004] tested as for instance 62Ga, 66As, and 70Br. With these new cases the quality of the theoretical corrections can be judged and qualitatively improved, since larger theoretical variations with larger differences between nuclides are predicted. If the calculations agree with experiment, they will verify the reliability of the corrections for the original nine transitions where the corrections are considerably smaller.

Figure 2: Experimental test of ft-value corrections of superallowed β−decays reaching the constant Ft-value expected from the CVC hypothesis. Besides the experimental ft-values with error bars the range of theoretically expected ft-values is shown as a function of the charge on the daughter nucleus, Z [Hard2004].

8

Proton-neutron interactions and the new masses: The mass M(N,Z) of a nucleus with N neutrons and Z protons and its inherent connection with

the binding energy B(N,Z) = {NMn + ZMp – M(N,Z)}c2 (where Mn is the mass of the neutron and Mp that of the proton) must be regarded as one of the most fundamental characteristics of a nucleus. The steady growth in the number of nuclides whose masses have been measured over the years and in the obtained precision and accuracy have contributed significantly to our understanding of nuclear structure since the nuclear masses or binding energies represent the sum of all the nucleonic interactions. The most striking way in which shell structure manifests itself in mass systematics is through the two-neutron separation energy

S2n(N,Z) = B(N,Z) – B(N-2,Z) in the case of the neutron shells, and the two-proton separation energy

S2p(N,Z) = B(N,Z) – B(N,Z-2) in the case of proton shells. The single-nucleon separation energy is a less clear-cut indication because of the pairing effect [Lunn2003]. Mass measurements with relative mass precision of about 1x10-7 in long isotopic and isotonic chains allow to study the fine structure of the mass surface and clarify discontinuities in order to extract nuclear structure information from binding energies. As an example for such a systematic survey Fig. 3 shows two-neutron separation energies in the vicinity of Z = 82 derived from the atomic mass evaluation AME1995 (top) and a more recent compilation including ISOLTRAP data (bottom) [Schw2001].

Figure 3: Two-neutron separation energies in the vicinity of Z = 82 as a function of neutron number. Shown

are S2n values derived from the atomic mass evaluation AME1995 (top) and a more recent compilation including ISOLTRAP data (bottom) [Schw2001].

9

A highly interesting class of interaction is the one of the last proton(s) with the last neutron(s)

and is called δVpn [Zhan1989, VanI1995, Caki2004]. E.g. δVpn values show striking singularities for nuclei with N = Z, reflecting the T = 0 interaction. For even-even nuclei, δVpn is defined [Zhan1989, Bren1990] by

δVpn(Z,N) = ¼ [{B(Z,N) – B(Z,N-2)} – {B(Z-2,N) – B(Z-2,N-2)}] .

A given δVpn(Z,N) value for even-even nuclei refers to the interaction of the (Z-1) and Zth protons with the (N-1) and Nth neutrons.

In a recent study by R.B. Cakirli et al. [Caki2004] known masses from the new atomic mass evaluation AME2003 [Audi2003] were used to extract δVpn values to highlight the variations of the p-n interaction and to interpret the very characteristic behavior. δVpn values can help explain and describe shell structure and orbit occupations near the Fermi surface, e.g. in the 208Pb region. Since the magnitude of variations in δVpn are in the order of 150-250 keV in a given region, the errors in the δVpn values must be less than 30-50 keV to draw a clear conclusion. Since four masses enter in the δVpn(Z,N) equation, it becomes immediately obvious that meaningful trends can only be distinguished if the errors on each individual mass value are in the order of 10-20 keV corresponding to δm ≈ 5x10-8 for masses above A = 200. Presently only Penning trap mass spectrometers can reach this accuracy and only a very small number of mass values with this accuracy exist in the heavy mass region. The analysis by R.B. Cakirli et al. [Caki2004] show the clear need of new high-precision mass measurements far from stability.

Nuclear masses far from stability to test new mass models: The last few years saw significant progress in the construction of purely microscopic mass

models on the basis of self-consistent mean-field models. Large-scale fits of Skyrme-type interactions to all available masses became feasible [Gori2003]. When including phenomenological correction terms for correlation effects, these Skyrme mass fits compete with the best available microscopic-macroscopic models. More recent theoretical developments allow now the large-scale microscopic calculation of correlation energies, either in the framework of a symmetry-restored Generator Coordinate Method [Bend2004], or a microscopic Bohr-Hamiltonian [Flei2004]. Further development of the models is necessary to include all important correlation effects simultaneously, but the present results are most encouraging as they improve the masses around shell closures. For a more reliable extrapolation of masses not only the models, but also the effective interactions used and the protocols for the adjustment of their coupling constants have to be improved. To that aim, it is highly desirable to have more data on neutron-rich nuclei beyond the neutron shell closures that separate the stable nuclei from the dripline. Their structure is mainly determined by the single-particle states above the shell closures, which are not completely constrained by the data on more stable nuclei. In-trap conversion electron and alpha spectroscopy:

Presently high-resolution electron spectroscopy is limited by the thickness of radioactive sources due to scattering in the source material. Since ions localized in a Penning trap represent an ideal carrier-free source, where energy loss or scattering do not influence the line shape, we also want to equip MATS with novel, highly efficient experimental techniques for in-trap conversion electron and α spectroscopy [Weis2002]. Moreover, due to the preparation trap isobarically pure sources can be obtained. In addition in-trap α spectroscopy will be studied. Typically the α decay of a heavy even-even nucleus leads within 10-20% to the first excited 2+ state of the daughter nucleus [Sobi2001]. The populating α decay causes the emission of low-energy 'shake-off' electrons which allow the determination of the decay position [Gras1975]. After a lifetime (typ. few hundred ps) the

10

2+ state itself decays via L conversion, again producing several shake-off electrons. During the lifetime of the 2+ state the recoil nucleus typically moves by about 50-100 µm. Thus the origin of the shake-off electrons at the position of the conversion decay will be displaced by this distance with respect to the position of the initial α decay. In order to adapt this distance to the position resolution achievable in the electron detector, the magnetic field of the Penning trap on the axis behind the magnet can be adiabatically expanded, e.g. from 7 T at the trap center to 7×10-3 T in about 1 m distance. Thus the position of the two electron components can be detected in distance of about 1.5-3 mm, sufficient for the position resolution of a segmented electron detector.

Measuring the position of both electron components results in a lifetime measurement of the 2+ state with the recoil-distance method, allowing for a determination of the quadrupole deformation. In addition 0+ states can be populated in the α decay, whose lifetimes can be determined with the same experimental technique via shake-off and conversion electrons (in situations where the 0+ state is the first excited state). This would yield access to a measurement of the E(0) strength ρ2(E0). This method is suitable for all α-decaying isotopes e.g. produced at the Super-FRS via fragmentation of a 238U beam.

Position-sensitive α-recoil coincidence spectroscopy as well as position-sensitive electron spectroscopy allow for diagnostics of the size and shape of the ion cloud in the trap, while the conversion electron lines provide an unambiguous Z identification. Due to the rotational character of the converted transitions, from the measured energy of the K and L lines the rotational energy and thus the spin can be extracted. Therefore this experimental technique enables for an improved assignment of level schemes especially in odd nuclei compared to the so far used methods of α-spectroscopy. Performance and applicability of MATS

MATS is a novel and unique setup using an advanced trapping system and highly-charged ions for high-precision mass measurements and trap assisted spectroscopy. The proposed project aims for a relative mass precision of better than 10-8 even for nuclides with half-lives of only 10 ms. Assuming an overall efficiency of about 1-5% (depending on the speed of extraction for the low-energy branch gas catcher, the charge-breeding and trapping time) nuclides with yields of only a few 10/s are accessible. With the advantage of using highly-charged ions resolving powers of above 107 will be easily obtained, enough to resolve low lying isomers with excitation energies of a few 10 keV. Since the measurement technique can be applied to any nuclide of interest with proper yield and half-life, irrespective of the chemical behavior of the ion under investigation, all above discussed physics cases and mass candidates can be addressed with the novel high-precision Penning trap mass spectrometer MATS at the future facility FAIR.

Why install MATS at the FAIR facility?

Based on the latest atomic mass evaluation AME2003 [Audi2003] 2228 atomic masses out of 3180 known nuclides are measured or estimated from nuclear trends (see Fig. 4). 1158 masses are known with a relative mass uncertainty of δm/m = 10-7, 181 masses with δm/m = 10-8, and surprisingly only 24 nuclides with δm/m = 10-9 where the heaviest one is 134Cs. Motivated by the physics cases addressed above many more masses, especially in the medium heavy and heavy mass region above A = 180 are needed with a precision of better than 5x10-8 (i.e. δm < 10 keV for A = 200). These physics questions can be ideally addressed by the MATS project.

11

10-9

10-8

10-7

10-6

10-5

10-4

mm

Ar

Ne

Se

Sn

NdPm

SmEu

DyHo

Yb

HgTlPb

BiPo

FrRa

CsBa

Ce

Sr

BrKrRb

N=8

Z=8

N=20

Z=20

N=28

N=28

Z=28

N=82

Z=82

N=126

N=152

N=152

CrMn

NiCu

Ga

N=20

NaMg

K

Pr

AgC1

C2

C3C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

C9

C10 C11 C12

C12

C13

C14

C15

C16

C17

C18

C19 C20

C21

C20

C22

C11

C4

Figure 4: Nuclear chart with the relative mass uncertainties δm/m of all known nuclides shown in a color

code (see scale bottom right, stable nuclides are marked in black). Masses of gray-shaded nuclides are estimated from systematic trends [Audi2003]. The isobaric lines of the carbon clusters C1 to C22 demonstrate the advantage of using a “carbon cluster mass grid” for calibration purposes [Blau2002].

In precision measurements it is of crucial interest to have a clean and intense sample available

for the measurement, both can be achieved at FAIR even for nuclides that are not at all available elsewhere. The main regions where MATS will have unique possibilities due to its installation at the FAIR facility are very neutron rich nuclei and nuclides of elements that are not produced at ISOL facilities, e.g. it is expected that the neutron drip-line will be reached up to Z = 25. For very neutron-rich nuclides MATS will profit especially from the yields that are considerably higher than everywhere else in the world, but also from the very clean beam delivered by the SuperFRS. These clean conditions in combination with high yields and no persistent element selectivity will also ease considerably, in some cases permit for the first time, precision measurements for proton rich nuclides as for instance superallowed beta emitters. From the second generation facilities RIA is expected to be competitive but it will be in operation later than FAIR. The planned mass measurement program at the Munich FRM-II reactor also aims for very neutron rich nuclei but will not become operational within the next 5-7 years and will have due to the production mechanism only access to a limited number of radionuclides. In this respect FAIR seems to be the appropriate place for the installation of MATS.

Finally, MATS has the possibility to provide clean or even isomerically pure bunched beams which will be of high interest and advantage for other experiments proposed at FAIR, as e.g. LaSpec, a Laser Spectroscopy setup for the study of nuclear properties.

Mass measurement program for radionuclides worldwide (“competition”):

Trapping radioactive ions is becoming a routine technique in nuclear physics. The combination of a radiofrequency Paul trap for beam preparation and a Penning trap for high-precision experiments like mass spectrometry and nuclear decay spectroscopy already plays a prominent role at almost all existing radioactive beam facilities, as shown in Fig. 5. The application of such devices is also planned in all future laboratories providing radioactive beams. New developments, like trapping devices in a cryogenic, ultra-clean environment, higher magnetic fields (e.g. in the LEBIT project at MSU [Schw2003b]), as well as the employment of laser ionization for beam purification [Blau2003,Wend2004] and charge breeders to produce highly-charged ions (e.g. in the TITAN project at TRIUMF/Vancouver [Dill2003]), show a bright future and provide a healthy competition for ion traps in nuclear physics research [Klug2003, Klug2004]. All projects are unique and have

12

their particular strength. MATS at FAIR will be the first installation to combine cryogenic trapping systems and the use of high charge states for radioactive species with beam yields that in many cases exceed those available elsewhere, a prerequisite for becoming a front player in the field. MATS is therefore expected to be superior to many existing facilities concerning the achievable precision and the number of exotic radionuclides accessible.

Many of the above addressed physics motivations for high-precision mass spectrometry are also valid for the second mass measurement project within NUSTAR, named ILIMA. It aims for mass measurements with relative uncertainties of ~10-7 in storage rings. Due to the long cooling times access to very short-lived nuclei with an half-life below 1 s is not possible with ILIMA. For mass measurements at ILIMA absolute calibrants from other sources, such as MATS, are important. While ILIMA can map a mass surface over a large area MATS is interested in specific nuclides where a high-precision is required. There are interesting candidates (a list of special cases and unresolved mass problems for the AME2003 can be found in [Waps2003], pp 169) where it is important to attack them from two different sides: by the storage ring and by the trap community. The experiments will be performed in a both cooperative and at the same time competitive spirit between ILIMA and MATS.

Figure 5: Penning trap facilities which are in operation, under construction or planned at accelerators

[Klug2004].

13

B Systems

With MATS (Precision Measurements of very short-lived nuclei using an Advanced Trapping System for highly-charged ions) at FAIR we aim for applying two different techniques to very short-lived radionuclides: High-precision mass measurements and in-trap conversion electron and alpha spectroscopy. The experimental setup of MATS is a unique combination of an electron beam ion trap for charge breeding, ion traps for beam preparation, and a high precision Penning trap system for mass measurements and decay studies. Each subsystem is a versatile tool itself and allows different high-precision experiments resulting in a broad physics output. All subsystems will be discussed individually in the following. 1. Subsystems

1.1 Ion beam cooler and buncher (linear radiofrequency ion trap)

Ion beam preparation is critical for trapping rare exotic nuclides. Although gas cells thermalize reactions products with great efficiency and rapidity, they do so with significant diffusion which causes large emittances in the absence of confining forces. Providing the correct time structure for subsequent trapping is also imperative for preserving high efficiency. Segmented radiofrequency quadrupole (RFQ) cooler bunchers, providing transversal and longitudinal confinement in the presence of collisions between radioactive ions and light buffer gas atoms, have proved their efficiency and adaptability, now becoming standard elements for trapping systems. The first stage of MATS will be a second-generation cooler buncher such as that used with the LEBIT facility [Schw2003], consisting of open, cylindrical electrode geometry for the transverse RF field and tapered insertion electrodes for the longitudinal field (see Fig. 6). The system will be operated at cryogenic temperature which offers a potential gain of two orders of magnitude over a room temperature system.

Figure 6: Conceptual electrode layout of the LEBIT-buncher [Schw2003].

The RFQ is the connection between MATS and the gas catcher of the low energy branch of the

Super-FRS. It is required to match the beam emittance of the radioactive ions to the quite small acceptance of the EBIT electron beam, to guarantee a high injection efficiency. Since it is yet not decided whether there will be an RFQ or a novel laser ion source trap LIST for bunched, low emittance beam release [Blau2003, Wend2004] along with the gas catcher or not, we decided to include such a device in our setup. The RFQ is in addition ideally suited to provide bunched, low

14

emittance beams to other experiments, as e.g. to LaSpec. For collinear laser spectroscopy experiments this will result in a tremendous reduction in background as well as in line width as already demonstrated at IGISOL [Niem2002, Camp2002].

a) Simulations ii) The detector

Not needed. ii) The beam

Beam transport will be simulated by using one of the two self-written programs by the collaborators S. Schwarz and W. Plass. Detailed simulations studies have already been performed for the existing RFQs at ISOLTRAP [Herf2001b, Kell2001], JYFLTRAP [Niem2001], SHIPTRAP, and LEBIT [Schw2003].

b) Radiation hardness Due to the rather low beam intensities for the most interesting nuclei, radiation hardness is not

an issue.

c) Design The design will be based on the existing RFQs at ISOLTRAP [Herf2001b, Kell2001],

JYFLTRAP [Niem2001], SHIPTRAP, and LEBIT [Schw2003]. To adapt the system to the new requirements about half a year is needed.

d) Construction The construction phase including first test measurements is expected to take about two years.

e) Acceptance Tests Before installation of the RFQ cooler, off-line tests will assure that the required performance is

reached. Since the cooler is being built within the MATS collaboration, no formal acceptance tests as such are specified.

f) Calibration Calibration with respect to voltage and RF frequency will be done with ions from a stable off-

line ion source.

g) Request for test beams At the first stage no test with radioactive ions is needed. For the final commissioning a

radioactive test beam is required.

15

1.2 Charge breeding electron beam ion trap (EBIT)

The primary task of the electron beam ion trap (shown in Fig. 7) to create high charge states in a very short time, leads to the use of a high-intensity electron beam [Cres2001,Cres2004]. The use of non-immersed, compressed electron beams of 5A has been demonstrated already. Two new EBITs based on the successful Heidelberg EBIT design are currently under construction at the MPI-K in Heidelberg. They implement electron guns capable of such high emission currents. In addition to the charge breeding task, the EBIT should be equipped with a high-resolution X-ray spectrometer to carry out spectroscopic measurements sensitive to nuclear size effects [Beie1998].

pump

pump

pump

manipulator

insulators

shutter valve

magnet

collector

compensator

insulators

trap

Figure 7: Scheme of the Heidelberg design on which the proposed charge breeding EBIT will be based. The charge breeding EBIT proposed here follows the Heidelberg EBIT design closely. A

cryogen-free superconducting magnet (6T) will be used for the compression of the electron beam to typical current densities between 1000 and 10000 A/cm2. The beam energy can be adjusted, in order to optimize the required charge state within a given breeding time. The Heidelberg EBIT can provide a maximum electron beam current of 535 mA, a beam diameter in the confinement region of about 70 µm, which corresponds roughly to a current density of 14000 A/cm2. With the higher beam current of the breeder EBIT the beam diameter will be larger, which results in a higher acceptance for injected ion beams. At the maximum electron beam energy of 50 kV, the EBIT can in principle produce bare ions up to Xe54+, and He-like ions across the periodic table. In order to increase the breeding efficiency, shell closures can be used to collect most of the ions in one charge state, by appropriate adjustment of the electron beam energy [Cres2004]. Figure 8 and figure 9 show the breeding for Sn-ions for moderate beam energies for Ni- and Ne-like configurations at different breeding times. High efficiencies already for short breeding times (<50ms) can be reached. Ions such as Sn40+ can be produced in breeding times in the order of 20 milliseconds at highest current densities.

16

18 19 20 21 22 230

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

rela

tive

popu

latio

n (%

)

ion charge state

10 ms 20 ms 50 ms 100 ms

Electron energy: 1.1 keVBreeding time:

Figure 8: Charge breeding of Sn at 1.1 keV beam energy, 700 A/cm2 current density and 10-9 mbar residual

gas pressure. After 20 ms, nearly 80% of the ions are in the state Sn22+ (Ni-like closed-shell configuration).

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 410

10

20

30

40

50

rela

tive

popu

latio

n (%

)

ion charge state

20 ms 50 ms 100 ms 200 ms 500 ms

Electron energy: 6.4 keVBreeding time:

Figure 9: Charge breeding of Sn at 6.4 keV beam energy, 700 A/cm2 current density and 10-9 mbar residual

gas pressure. After 500 ms, nearly 40% of the ions are in the state Sn39+ and 40% in the state Sn40+ (Na-like and Ne-like configuration).

The EBIT can produce test beams of stable isotopes independently of the accelerator facility,

and deliver them to the Penning trap. For this purpose external ion sources, as e.g. the so-called MEVVA (metal vapor vacuum arc) source, can be used to inject low-charge ions into the EBIT. The Heidelberg EBIT also makes use of a laser ablation ion source to load the trap with ions from solid elements [Miro2003]. In this way, independent measurements, calibrations, and tests of the preparation and precision trap can fully exploit its capabilities during off-line times.

17


The charge state evolution is followed by means of a solid state energy dispersive X-ray detector. High-purity intrinsic Ge detectors have proven to be very well suited for this application. The re-combination lines (radiative/dielectronic) allow the determination of the charge state of the trapped ions in real-time. A high-resolution X-ray crystal spectrometer attached to the EBIT will provide additional information about the charge state, as well as obtaining atomic and nuclear size data.

An optical diagnostic port can be used for visible and laser spectroscopy diagnostics. The spectroscopic instrumentation developed at the MPI-K enables isotopic shifts in the visible and X-ray ranges to be resolved, and thus to obtain information about nuclear size effects, spin, and other relevant data. ii) The beam

Beam transport, injection, and extraction have been simulated using SIMION and TRICOMP, two software packages capable of calculating the electrostatic and magnetic fields and ion trajectories. TRICOMP also takes space-charge effects consistently into consideration. Meanwhile, practical tests at the Heidelberg EBIT facility will help to find optimized conditions. The acceptance of the EBIT electron beam for injected ions which is critical for the efficiency of the breeding process, will be investigated via ion tracking simulations. Thus the required matching of the beam emittance via the RFQ cooler can be determined.


an issue. The small amounts of short-lived radioactive isotopes introduced into the trap after the RFQ quadrupole are not expected to constitute a problem neither from the point of view of the radiation background level, nor from the radiation safety. Nonetheless, provisions for easy disassembly of the drift tubes and other exposed elements of the ion optics in order to facilitate a regular decontamination schedule will be taken into the design.

c) Design The design will be based on the existing EBITs that are operated at the MPI-K in Heidelberg.

Six months should be sufficient for the design changes to adapt the current EBIT design to the special needs at GSI (1 PhD).

d) Construction The workshops at the MPI-K in Heidelberg have already built two EBITs and as the MATS

EBIT will be similar, the construction phase including first test measurements and transfer to the final MATS setup is expected to take about two year.

e) Acceptance Tests Before installation of the EBIS, off-line tests at MPI-K in Heidelberg will assure that the

required performance is reached. For the commercial EBIT magnet a standard acceptance test by the company will be performed. Since the full charge breeder setup is being built within the MATS collaboration, no formal acceptance tests as such are specified.

f) Calibration No calibration needed.

g) Request for test beams After initial operation tests with stable isotopes, realistic external beams with non-radioactive

ions at somewhat higher intensities would be desirable to facilitate and optimize the fine tuning of the device, before weak radioactive beams are needed.

18

1.3 q/A selection Since the creation of highly-charged ions in an EBIT is a statistical process a distribution of

different charge states for the ion of interest and, in addition, impurity ions is delivered. Therefore, a q/A-separation stage has to be installed to select the desired charge to mass ratio for injection into the Penning trap system. Due to floor space restrictions in the current LEB hall the trap system is located on the second floor while the EBIS is situated on the ground floor. Hence also a bender to inject ions from the EBIT into the Penning trap is required. In the current design the two functions are separated. An electrostatic bender is foreseen for bending the ions to the second floor while a magnetic multi-passage spectrometer (MPS), as shown in Fig. 10, could be utilized as q/A separator [Laka1992].

Figure 10: Left: Sketch of the magnetic multi-passage spectrometer for q/A selection. 4,5,6 and 7 are the

electrostatic lenses. Right: L are the lenses, K are additional steerer and correction elements [Laka1992].

A MPS consists of an electro-magnet with circular pole shoes and four ports where electrostatic lenses which can be operated as mirrors are situated. For instance an ion beam injected from the left experiences a 90 degree deflection in the magnetic field directing it into the mirror lens where it can be reflected back to the center of the magnet. Then it experiences another 90 degree bend and can either be ejected to the right or reflected one more time to direct the beam finally towards the upper port. Depending on the operation parameters of the electrostatic lens/mirror system an ion beam can be transported in three different directions. Since the resolution between different q/A values for a given B field strength depends on the length of the pathway in the field, or more precisely the area covered by the beam in the dipole field, a higher resolution is possible by multi passage operation. In the multi passage operation mode where the ion beam is making more than one passage through the magnet it has been shown that transport efficiencies on the order of 60% are possible. Therefore in the ground floor the MPS offers a flexible and efficient solution combining the different requirements of q/A selection and beam distribution system. The incoming beam from the LEB ion catcher can be either injected into the EBIT for charge breeding or bend to a detector for diagnosis. After charge breeding in the EBIT the selected charge state can be transferred to the traps via the electrostatic bender.

The MPS can be baked in order to reach a rest gas pressure below 10-9 mbar with turbo pumps at each port. The device requires about 1.6x1.6 m2 floor space, cooling water and 8 kW power. The weight is on the order of 800 kg. For the alignment of the MP spectrometer (and the other components) standard adjustment units should be available.

19


Not needed. ii) The beam

Beam transport will be simulated using SIMION and TRICOMP, two software packages capable of calculating the electrostatic and magnetic fields and ion trajectories. The ions from the EBIT will have an energy distribution, which requires an achromatic transport through the MPS. Electrostatic correction of the magnet energy dispersion, which is required for the achromatic transport needs to be calculated.


an issue.

c) Design The design will be based on the existing MPS at the IAP of the Frankfurt university. The

existing device is available for test measurements in the design phase.

d) Construction The construction phase is expected to take less than one a year. Another PhD year is needed to

specify the system in respect to efficiency and resolving power.

e) Acceptance Tests Before installation of the magnetic multi-passage spectrometer, off-line tests will assure that the

required performance is reached. Main part of these performance tests are the transport of ions with a given energy spread. The correction elements for an achromatic transport will be tested therefore. Since the unit is being built within the MATS collaboration, no formal acceptance tests as such are specified.

f) Calibration The magnetic field strength of the MPS can be calibrated with a standard NMR probe. Further

calibration will be done with ions from a stable off-line ion source or with highly-charged stable noble gas ions from the EBIT.

g) Request for test beams Not required.

20

1.4 Preparation Penning trap

The preparation Penning trap will be used to provide the precision Penning trap and others with a cooled beam of highly-charged ions. Since highly-charged ions cannot be cooled by buffer gas collisions we have to implement other cooling techniques. The most promising techniques are electron cooling and sympathetic laser cooling. However, a new cooling scheme based on protons will be tested at the TITAN ion trap facility at TRIUMF/Canada. The necessary research has to focus on the applicability and limits of electron cooling. This will be done to a large fraction within the HITRAP project [Quin2001, Beie2003]. The main effort will be at the University of Mainz where the existing trap setups will be used to test new detection methods and to investigate the operation of a large cylindrical trap operated at 4K. For a schematic drawing of a Penning trap setup see subproject 1.5 (Precision Penning trap).

The preparation trap will be installed in a superconducting magnetic solenoid of about 7T. In order to reach the necessary vacuum conditions to store highly-charged ions for an extended period of time, the trap needs to be kept at liquid helium temperature of 4K. Here a static cryogenic vacuum (SHV, < 10-15 mbar) will be reached by cryopumping. This allows also for improved in-trap detection via image currents for the diagnosis of the cooling process. To keep the trap at this low temperature it will be either coupled to the cooling reservoir of the superconducting coils of the magnet or a cryogen-free cold head will be used. Similar systems are already successfully used within the ATHENA [Amor2004] and ASACUSA [Yama2002] experiments at CERN for the handling and manipulation of positrons and antiprotons in order to create antihydrogen. For the second case of a cold head an EBIT ion source has been built recently by the Heidelberg collaborator. This cryogen-free system seems to be the most promising technique in terms of handling and maintenance. Since the HITRAP cooler trap [Beie2003] has similar requirements in this respect, it will serve as an important test case for such a trap.

a) Simulations Simulations are decisive for a detailed understanding of the mechanism of electron cooling.

Simulations for the determination of cross sections and cooling times have already been done within the HITRAP project at GSI. They demonstrate the possibility to cool bare uranium in an electron bath in a Penning trap within a few seconds without significant recombination losses. Further investigations are in progress and performed by G. Zwicknagel at the University of Erlangen.

i) The detector Detection is needed to diagnose the status and success of the cooling process as well as to

optimize it. For this, both, Multi-Channel-Plates based detector systems that are retractable are used as well as nondestructive image current detection. These types of detection are well understood and do not need additional simulations.

ii) The beam The beam handling will be simulated using mainly single particle trajectory tracking codes as for

instance SIMION. This code includes magnetic and electrostatic fields calculated from electrode geometry by solving the Poisson equation. This has the advantage that there are is approximation needed concerning fringe fields or field distribution.


an issue.

21

c) Design The design will be based on existing trap set-ups that have been supervised at the University of

Mainz. It is estimated that the design of the trap and its support elements will take about one man-year.

d) Construction The workshops at the University of Mainz have already built several traps for various projects

within Europe and concentrates the necessary experience to complete a complex trap setup in due time. The electroplating of the individual trap components can be done using existing GSI infrastructure. The completion phase is expected to take about two years with in total about two PostDoc man years and four PhD man years.

e) Acceptance Tests A standard acceptance test will be required of the magnet manufacturer. After installation of the

trap system, off line tests will assure that the required performance is reached. Since the traps are being built within the MATS collaboration, no formal acceptance tests as such are specified.

f) Calibration The only calibration needed is in order to know the magnetic field strength of the trap magnet.

This will be done first using a standard NMR probe by the manufacturer. With the operation of the internal test ion source, this will be done determining the cyclotron resonance frequency of stored ions.

g) Request for test beams In order to get the preparation trap operational an external test beam is not required. Stable ions

created by the charge breeder itself and singly charged ions from a test ion source will be used to make the necessary tests.

22

1.5 Measurement Penning trap

The technique of mass measurements in a Penning trap (see Fig. 11) is well established for both, stable and short-lived nuclei (for the physics of a stored ion in a Penning trap see [Brow1986], for the application of traps to mass spectrometry see e.g. [Boll2004, Klug2003, Lunn2003]). This will minimize the actual research and development effort. However, the combination of high precision mass measurements with in-trap decay spectroscopy is a new and novel approach and will require a new trap design. The trap needs to provide an excellent harmonic trapping potential while being a very open structure for the escape of the decay products. To define the limits and to investigate the influence of a novel electrode structure on the magnetic and electric fields extensive simulations need to be performed. These simulations include ion optics and trapped-ion dynamics studies as well as detection studies. In addition to the trap design, further R&D effort will be on the development of sensitive electronics and detectors for in-trap spectroscopy.

The most stringent requirement in the design of the measurement trap is the capability to perform high-precision mass measurements. Since this requires a minimized uncertainty in the frequency determination, the magnetic field needs to be as high (B ≥ 7 T), homogeneous (≤ ±0.1 ppm measured over a 10 mm diameter spherical volume), and stable (δB/δt×1/B ≤ 10-9 / h) as possible. At the same time, the planned in-trap decay experiments require sufficient space inside the bore, so that the bore diameter needs to be about 160 mm or larger (see Fig. 11 and 13).

During mass measurements the calibration of the magnetic field magnitude will be performed by the determination of the cyclotron frequency of stable ions with well-known masses. To this end, an off-line reference ion source will be installed which provides preferably also highly-charged ions. Here, carbon or carbon cluster ions provide the reference mass of choice [Blau2002] since the unified atomic mass unit is defined as 1/12 of the mass of 12C. Mass measurements on well-known masses allow the accuracy limit for the proposed setup to be studied [Kell2003].

He - CRYOSTATWITH

SUPERCONDUCTING INDUCTIVITY

LN 2-RESERVOIR

77 K

300 K

77 K

4 K

ISOLATIONVACUUM

7 T - MAGNET

TRAPVACUUM

PRECISIONTRAP

MCP-DETECTOR

2.40 m

IONS FROMPREPARATION

TRAP

ChanneltronDETECTOR

Figure 11: Proposed high-precision measurement Penning trap for mass spectrometry and in-trap

spectroscopy at the MATS project. The trap system is installed in a 7 T superconducting magnet. For mass spectrometry either a destructive time-of-flight cyclotron resonance or a non-destructive Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance detection will be used. For in-trap spectroscopy an electron conversion detector setup will be installed.

23

a) Simulations Simulations are necessary to study the excitation of the ion motion inside the hyperbolic high-precision Penning trap. Detailed simulation studies of the ion motion have already been performed at ISOLTRAP, a Penning trap mass spectrometer for short-lived radionuclides at ISOLDE/CERN.

i) The detector Destructive (time-of-flight ion cyclotron resonance, TOF-ICR) as well as non-destructive

detection techniques (Fourier-transform ion cyclotron resonance, FT-ICR) will be used to measure the cyclotron frequency of the stored ions. Both techniques are well known and novel detectors are presently under construction at the Universities of Mainz and Greifswald. Detailed simulations are not needed. See also subprojects 1.6 and 1.7 (detectors).

ii) The beam Beam simulation is mandatory to reach the envisaged accuracy. Mainly single particle trajectory

tracking codes will be used, as e.g. SIMION. This program calculates magnetic and electrostatic fields from a given electrode geometry by solving the Laplace / Poisson equation via a finite differential method. Ion trajectories within a given field geometry are calculated by using a Runge-Kutta (4th order) iteration technique. The injection, ejection, and storage in a Penning trap is well understood, however, there will be extensive calculations on these subjects to optimize the electrode shapes and setup. In addition self-written programs (by W. Plass and S. Schwarz) will be used to calculate ion trajectories within the traps. To calculate field inhomogeneities induced e.g. by the trap material itself a code (SUSZI) by S. Schwarz is available.

b) Radiation hardness Since experiments are performed with single trapped ions, radiation hardness is not an issue.

c) Design The design will be made in close collaboration with different groups from e.g. Jyväskylä,

Munich, GSI and Mainz, since they have extensive experience in designing trap and detector setups. It is expected, that the design will take about two man-years.

d) Construction Due to its complexity the setup will be built in two stages. The first stage includes the trap in

order to be able to investigate all issues that are connected to a novel trap design operated at 4K. About three PhD man years and four PhD man years are required. This stage will already allow high precision mass measurements. In a second stage the detectors for decay spectroscopy will be complemented.

e) Acceptance Tests A standard acceptance test will be required of the magnet manufacturer. After installation of the

trap system, off line tests will assure that the required performance is reached. Since the traps are being built within the MATS collaboration, no formal acceptance tests as such are specified.

f) Calibration The only calibration needed for the trap setup is in order to know the magnetic field strength of

the trap magnet. This will be done first using a standard NMR probe by the manufacturer. With the operation of the internal test ion source, this will be done determining the cyclotron resonance frequency of stored ions with well-known mass. The detectors around the trap will be calibrated first offline with standard calibration sources. The final calibration will be done on line with nuclides close to the nucleus to be measured. See also the section on detectors.

g) Request for test beams To get the measurement trap operational no external test beam is needed. Stable ions from the

charge breeder or singly charged ions from a test ion source will be used to make the necessary tests.

24

1.6 Instrumentation for mass spectrometry (TOF and FT-ICR detectors)

For mass spectrometry two detection techniques will be implemented. The destructive detection with microchannel plate (MCP) detectors (see Fig. 12 left) or Channeltrons (see Fig. 12 right) and the non-destructive detection with the Fourier-Transform-Ion-Cyclotron-Resonance (FT-ICR) method [Mars1998]. Both techniques are well established with respect to detection efficiency, design and construction.

Figure 12: For the destructive detection technique either a microchannel plate detector (left) or a Channeltron (right) will be used. The linear feedthrough enables to switch between the two detector types.

For mass determination the ions are ejected from the preparation or the precision Penning trap

towards a MCP detector for time-of-flight (TOF) ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry [Köni1995]. With a linear feedthrough each MCP array can be retracted and the beam line is thus open to a conversion electrode detector with a Channeltron for ion detection. The setup with a conversion electrode, where ions are accelerated to, allows a detection efficiency of about 100%. In addition, there is free access to the beam line and if the conversion electrode is turned off, the ions can be transported further to subsequent devices, e.g. to a tape station. It follows that in the case of the precision Penning trap even isomerically pure beams will become available for other experiments [Blau2004].

For FT-ICR two systems are projected. In case of the preparation Penning trap a broad-band FT-ICR detection will be implemented. This allows the monitoring of the cooling process of the ions in the trap and a simple detection and mass analysis. In the precision Penning trap a narrow-band FT-ICR detection will be used. The cryogenic environment and the optimized, low-noise electronics enable the detection of single ions and thus a non-destructive detection and mass analysis of the stored ions [Webe2004]. The R&D will mostly concentrate on the development of this sensitive detection technique. It is closely related to the development of the precision Penning trap.

In addition to the usage for mass spectrometry, other MCP detectors will be installed in the beam line for beam diagnostics and tuning. The design and construction of these detectors is related to the ones used for mass determination which allows a shorter development time. a) Simulations

i) The detector The MCP/Channeltron detectors as well as the FT-ICR technique are well known and need no

further simulation. The only exception is the optimization of the detection efficiency, which should be, e.g., in the case of the conversion electrode detector with a Channeltron close to 100%.

25

ii) The beam The ion trajectories into the strong magnetic field of the superconducting magnet to operate the

trap and along the drift section between trap and detector need to be simulated to quantify the transport efficiency, e.g., through exit diaphragms etc.. Many simulation studies in this respect have already been performed at other existing trap experiments as e.g. ISOLTRAP, SHIPTRAP, JYFLTRAP, and LEBIT. The simulation program SIMION is well suited for this purpose.

b) Radiation hardness For most nuclei of interest the beam intensity will be rather low, therefore radiation hardness

will not be a matter of concern.

c) Design The design of the MCP/Channeltron detectors and the FT-ICR detection will be made in close

collaboration with the Greifswald, Mainz, and GSI groups, since they have extensive experience in the design of MCP detectors and FT-ICR setups. The design of the standard MCP/Channeltron detector and the broad-band FT-ICR detection is expected to take about one man year. The single ion detection with the narrow-band FT-ICR system is correlated to the design of the measurement (precision) Penning trap and will be a further development of a similar system presently under construction at the Institute of Physics at the University of Mainz.

d) Construction A similar MCP/Channeltron detector has been constructed at the workshop at the University of

Greifswald and other MCP detectors have been built at the University of Mainz. The FT-ICR detection technique is presently studied at the University of Greifswald and thus the construction of all detectors is expected to take one year. The narrow-band FT-ICR detection system is more delicate with respect to the electronics development. Special low-noise electronic parts need to be installed and tested in advance.

e) Acceptance Tests A standard acceptance test will be performed. After installation of the trap system, off line tests

will assure that the required performance is reached. Since the detectors are being built within the MATS collaboration, no formal acceptance tests as such are specified.

f) Calibration In case of the MCP/Channeltron detector no calibration is needed. Only the measurement of the

detection efficiency. In case of the FT-ICR detection test measurements are required to calibrate the obtained frequency spectrum with respect to the applied trapping potential and the magnetic field.

g) Request for test beams Not required. The detectors and the FT-ICR system can be tested off-line.

26

1.7 In-trap spectroscopy detectors

In-trap conversion electron spectroscopy offers the unique possibility to study internal conversion electrons from carrier-free sources, thus avoiding energy loss and scattering effects that deteriorate the line shape and thus the energy resolution. The electrons will be transported along the strong magnetic field of the Penning trap to a detector positioned at the ejection side end of the trap. A sketch of an in-trap electron conversion spectroscopy setup is shown in Fig. 13.

Figure 13: Representative sketch of an in-trap electron conversion spectroscopy arrangement. In addition to

the conversion electron detector (CE), the figure illustrates an optional arrangement for in-trap detection of charged-particles (CP), gamma-rays and beta-particles. Such a complete setup would require a large diameter bore, about 160 mm or more to be practical. In this proposal we concentrate on the electron conversion detection and charged particle in the spirit given in the original Letter of Intent.

a) Simulations

Simulations are especially needed for the design of the segmented electron detector and for the optimization of the conversion-electron transport from the measurement trap to the detector.

i) The detector A central idea for the in-trap spectroscopy studies is to localize the decay position within the trap

by guiding the electrons along a suitable magnetic field to the detector on the trap ejection axis. Therefore the granularity and the positioning of the annular segmented electron detector needs careful design, guided by tracking simulations using codes like e.g. SIMION.

ii) The beam Since the in-trap spectroscopy setup will be placed within the trap magnet, the same beam

simulation requirements as for the trap setup apply here as well.

b) Radiation hardness For most nuclei of interest the beam intensity will be rather low, therefore radiation hardness

will not be a matter of concern.

27

c) Design An annular, (Peltier-) cooled, segmented Si(Li) electron detector will be best suited. Such

detectors cannot be bought from the shelf but rather need development time at the manufacturer. For the optional charged-particle (α) spectroscopy detector a compact design for feeding the multiple signals from the highly-segmented detector to the electronics has to be found.

d) Construction The design and machining of the mechanical parts needed for the integration of the spectroscopy

detectors into the trap setup will be performed by the workshop of the LMU in Garching. The construction and test phase requires one PostDoc man year and about two PhD man years.

e) Acceptance Tests Upon delivery of the electron detector, laboratory acceptance tests will have to be performed

using standard electron calibration sources. Since the final detector arrangement are being setup within the MATS collaboration, no formal acceptance tests as such are specified.

f) Calibration The detectors around the trap will be calibrated first offline with standard electron calibration

sources. The final calibration will be done on line with nuclides close to the nucleus to be measured.

g) Request for test beams Since the characterization of the detector setup can be performed with standard test sources, no

request for test beams is needed.

28

2. Trigger, DACQ, Controls, On-line/Off-line Computing

For our purpose the beam into the stopper cell is already quasi-continuous – no trigger needed. The beam coming from the gas cell is continuous too. To capture the bunches provided by the RFQ and the preparation trap, a time resolution for trigger signals of about 50 ns is required.

The data acquisition and controls will be very similar to systems used in presently operated trap systems and detector setups. The data rates are low and the main technical challenge is in the real-time handling of a large number of different parameters. With today’s technology the control and data acquisition requirements for MATS can be satisfied with 4 standard PCs and standard interfaces like GPIB, ProfiBus and cards connected to the PCI slots of one of the PCs.

Recently a new LabVIEW-based control system [Beck2004] has been implemented at the ISOLTRAP (ISOLDE/CERN, Switzerland), SHIPTRAP (GSI Darmstadt, Germany), and LEBIT (NSCL-MSU, USA) facilities by using the Control System (CS) framework which has been developed by DVEE/GSI during the last two years [Beck2003]. CS is an object-oriented, multi-threaded, event-driven framework with Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) functionality. It allows one to implement distributed systems by adding experiment specific add-ons. Thus, this CS is ideally suited for the MATS purposes and can be adapted and extended to our requirements. The detector part is described in the detector subproject.

3. Beam/Target Requirements

a. Beam specifications: Synchronization of the experiment is based on the timing of trapping. Thus there are no special requests for the primary beam except those set by an injection to the trap.

b. Running Scenario:

A typical mass measurement will take between a few hours and a few days for one nuclide depending on the requested precision and the available intensity. Since we aim to measure a limited number of nuclei which are carefully selected candidates in their physics importance, it will be sufficient to have about 5-6 data taking periods per year each lasting about four days to two weeks. This also reduces the man power effort in place, i.e. at FAIR. During these beam time periods, MATS would be the primary user at the low energy branch, however, there will be the possibility to share the beam with other users that need the beam for short time periods of few hours.

4. Physics Performance

The RFQ will be designed to provide bunched beams with a longitudinal emittance of about 10 eV µs and a transversal emittance of ~10 π mm mrad at 2.5 keV energy, ideally suited for injection into an EBIT. The cooling time within the buncher is 1 to a few ms and the overall efficiency can be as high as 50%.

The proposed EBIT can hold more than 109 charges for an electron-beam charge-compensation of 10%. The most dominant charge states (>30%) for some typical ions, charge bred for 20 ms in an EBIT with the parameters given above, are listed in Tab. 1.

Table 1: Peak charge-state after 20 ms breeding time.

Element Charge-state Element Charge-state 8O 7+ 20Ca 12+

11Na 9+ 36Kr 16+ 12Mg 9+ 37Rb 18+ 18Ar 11+ 51Sb 19+ 19K 11+ 54Xe 21+

29

The multi-passage spectrometer can be operated in single- or multi-passage mode, depending on the required resolving power. In the multi-passage operation mode where the ion beam is making more than one passage through the magnet a transport efficiency of 60% is possible. The resolving power needs to be determined.

Special performances are required for the superconducting magnet of the precision trap in respect to the magnetic field magnitude (B ≥ 7 T), homogeneity (≤ ±0.1 ppm measured over a 10 mm diameter spherical volume), and stability (δB/δt×1/B ≤ 10-9 / h). For the superconducting magnet of the preparation trap and the EBIT standard devices can be used. Limitations in the precision of mass determinations are temperature and pressure fluctuations in the helium and nitrogen reservoir of the superconducting magnets. They cause changes in the magnetic susceptibility of the materials surrounding the precision Penning traps and thus in the magnetic field homogeneity. The effect of temperature and pressure fluctuations should be minimized by the implementation of a temperature (∆T < 0.1 K) and pressure (∆p < 0.2 mbar) stabilization system. The transport, capture, and ejection efficiency of a trap are close to 100%.

The resolving power achieved in a Penning trap is approximately equal to the product of the cyclotron frequency and the excitation duration Tex and the accuracy scales with the resolving power. The relative statistical mass uncertainty is then given by

δm/m ≈ m / (Tex q B N1/2) (SI units) where N is the number of detected ions. In order to obtain a high accuracy, i.e. a low mass uncertainty, high cyclotron frequencies through strong magnetic fields or high charge states, and long observation times are desirable. For radioactive ions far from stability the observation time is limited by the half-life while the number of detected ions is depending on the production yield and the available beam time. Since highly-charged ions have higher cyclotron frequencies the resolving power and the accuracy are increased; or vice versa, a high-precision mass measurement can be performed in a much shorter time as compared to the case of singly-charged ions, which gives access to very short-lived nuclides. Figure 14 shows the advantage of using highly-charged ions with respect to the accuracy in the case of an ion with mass 100 in a 7 T strong magnetic field.

0.01 0.1 1

1E-10

1E-9

1E-8

1E-7

1E-6

1000030001000

300

100A40+

δm / m

Tex / s

100A+

N = 100

1000030001000

300N = 100

Figure 14: The achievable mass uncertainty for a nuclide with mass A = 100 u as a function of the excitation

time in the Penning trap (B = 7 T) for two sets of charge states and different numbers of detected ions. The upper set of curves belong to singly charged ions, the lower set of curves to ions in the charge state 40+. The grey shaded area corresponds to an excitation time Tex of 50-200 ms.

The Channeltron detectors used for mass spectrometry experiments have overall efficiencies

of 100%, MCP detectors in the order of 30-40%, depending on the kinetic energy of the ion.

30

C Implementation and Installation 1. Cave and Annex Facilities, Civil Engineering, Cranes, Elevators, Air Conditioning

(Temperature and Humidity Stability requirements), Cooling, Gases a. access, floor plan:

Figure 15: Floor plan of the MATS setup. The required temporary storage and maintenance area of about 3m × 4m is not included in this floor plan. The floor plan with dimensions is given in the schematic drawing of Fig. 15 (see also overall setup Fig. 1). Overall an area of minimum 10m × 5m × 9m is required. This area does not include space required for a staircase to access the second floor and for temporary storage and maintenance (about 3m × 4m). For the installation of the superconducting magnets, the EBIT and the cryogenic trap setup (see Fig. 1) a roof crane (1-2 t) with a hook height of 9 m is needed. On the ground floor access with a lifting cart is needed for the transport of heavy parts or devices. Room temperature stabilization to one degree would be preferable. The option of an air

First Floor

4waybender

Beam-line

Beam-lineBeamline

Pump

Rack 7Magnet

PumpPump

Table control PCsChair

4Chair

5

Detector

Rack 8Freq.

SuMa preparation

trap

SuMa meas.trap

Table meas. PCs

Chair 2

Chair 3

Rack 9Electr.

Rack 10Electr.

Compressorcold head

Pump

Rack 11Vacuum

Detec.

10 m

1.5 m1.5 m

1.6 m

0.7 m

0.7

m

1.5

m

1.0

m

1.2 m

1.5 m

2.9 m

MPSq/A

selection

4waybender

Beam-line

Beamline,Detector

Beam-line

Pump

Rack 6Vacuum

HV Cage EBIT

SuMa EBIT

Bea

m-

lineRack 5

Electr.

Rack 3Electr.

RFQ

Rack 1Electr.

Rack 2Electr.

PumpPumpPump

PumpTest ion source

Table Control PCs

Chair 1

Beam-line

Pump

DetectorDetector

Rack 4Electr.

Ground Floor

5 m

1.6 m0.7 m

0.7

m

1.5 m

2.5

m

1.5

m1.5 m

31

conditioned container serving as counting house should be considered. Alignment possibility for the beamline, the installation of the superconducting magnets and of the Si(Li) detector onto the trap ejection axis has to be provided.

b. electronic racks: RFQ: One rack needed for electronics. q/m separation: One rack needed for electronics and magnet power supply. EBIT: Two racks needed for the experiment control. One additional rack on a high-voltage cage (60 kV) is also needed. Penning traps: Five electronic racks (one for vacuum controllers, one for frequency generators, one for magnet supplies, and two for electronics) are needed. Detector: About one rack for detector and trigger electronics. in total: 11 standard full size 19” racks

c. cooling of detectors ( heat produced = heat removed!): RFQ: 2 kW of 16°C cooling water for turbopumps. q/A separation: 8 kW of 16oC cooling water for the magnet and the power supply. EBIT: 15 kW of 16°C cooling water for cryocoolers needed, 4 kW for turbopumps and magnets. Penning traps: 15 kW of 16°C cooling water for cryocoolers needed, 6 kW for turpopumps Detectors: Si(Li) detector will be Peltier cooled. TOF and FT-ICR detectors do not require cooling. Beamline: Already included in the numbers given above. In total: 50 kW of 16°C cooling water (these numbers are preliminary estimates since they depend on the final construction and components)

d. ventilation: No special ventilation is needed.

e. electrical power supplies: RFQ: 15 kW for high-voltage power supplies, pumps (including beamline) etc. q/A separation: 10 kW magnet power supply EBIT: 25 kW cryocooler power supply, trap power supplies, and pumps Penning traps and detectors: 20 kW for cryocoolers, 15 kW for remaining components including detectors. Beamline: Already included in the numbers given above. In total: 85 kW (these numbers are preliminary estimates since they depend on the final construction and components) General comment: A galvanically decoupled power grid for measurement electronics and a central grounding point has to be provided.

f. gas systems: Only small quantities of high purity gases needed for the RFQ, the EBIT, and for the trap system (the later only in the case of using singly charged ions and performing buffer-gas cooling). General comment: Pressurized air is needed for the MCP detectors and vacuum valves along the beam line.

g. cryo systems: RFQ: The RFQ will be operated either at LN2 or LHe temperature. EBIT: One to two cryocoolers will be operated at the EBIT Penning Traps: The superconducting magnets need LN2 and LHe cooling. Thus, a permanent liquid nitrogen line and a helium recovery line should be installed. The cryogenic trap systems will be installed in a cryogenic free cold head cryostat.

32

2. Detector –Machine Interface

a. Vacuum: RFQ: The RFQ vacuum (without external gas load for buffer-gas cooling) should be at the level of 10-7 to 10-8 mbar. q/A separation: Since the MPS has to transport the highly-charged ions a vacuum of 10-9 to 10-10

mbar is required. EBIT: The EBIT vacuum at the level of 10-9 to 10-10 mbar in the collector and electron gun chambers, and below 10-13 in the trap region will be connected to the beam pipe vacuum with low-conductance apertures to keep the pressure differences as needed. Penning traps and detectors: Since the measurements will be performed with highly-charged ions special care on the vacuum is required. In the cryogenic trap system a vacuum of better than 10-12 mbar will be reached.

b. Beam pipe: A 100 mm diameter beam pipe is typically used for the beam transport, although much smaller diameters can be sufficient. To obtain the required excellent vacuum, backing of the beam pipe is planned.

c. Target, in-beam monitors, in-beam detectors: To monitor the beam injected into the EBIT, a position sensitive detector, a channeltron and a Faraday cup has to be implemented. The same diagnostic setup is required to control the ion beam ejected from the EBIT. Multichannel plate detectors will be used to optimize and control beam transport between each trap device. See also subproject 1.6.

d. Timing: Standard timing systems as presently already in use will be installed.

e. Radiation environment: A radiation environment should be avoided to minimize background on the detector.

f. Radiation shielding: The radiation produced by the EBIT at the intended energies is sufficiently shielded by the stainless steel vacuum chambers. Some critical parts are also shielded by 4mm lead sheet, as a precaution, as well as to reduce the background level of the diagnostic instrumentation. Levels well below 1 µSv/hour at 10 cm from the chambers and are typical for high-energy operation. For the Penning traps no extra radiation shielding is needed. Experiments are performed with one or few ions.

3. Assembly and installation

a. Size and weight of detector parts, space requirements: Almost all parts will be assembled and tested of line at the different involved institutes. The final installation in the cave will be done after all parts are tested and specified. The space needed for handling is indicated in the schematic drawing of Fig. 15. Permanent access is needed. The minimum overall space requirement is 10m x 5m x 9m. The multi-passage spectrometer has a wait of 800 kg which can only be installed with a lift or a roof crane. The EBIT as well as the two superconducting magnets (including instruments) have each a weight of about 0.5-1 T. For the final installation in the cave access by a roof crane is needed.

33

b. Services and their connections: The superconducting magnets (EBIT and traps) as well as the RFQ ion beam cooler and buncher needs regular services, including twice a week filling of LN2 and about once a month filling of LHe for the magnets. A permanent LN2 line and a LHe recovery line will be requested. For the beam line valves and MCP detectors a permanent pressurized air line is needed. Detector needs only simple feed-throughs to provide signal transfer, cooling, etc..

c. Installation procedure: The experimental setup will be prepared and tested at different places, including the MPI-K in Heidelberg, the University of Mainz, the University of Greifswald, the University of Jyväskylä, and the Maier-Leibnitz-Laboratory in Garching. The EBIT setup (assembly weight of less than 1 t) can be rolled easily into its dedicated location at GSI as a whole. The electronic and trap setup is expected to be the major time factor at the MATS facility. The in-trap spectroscopy detector setup will be tested first at the home institute before transport to GSI. Laboratory space on-site has to be foreseen for final tests prior to installation at the beam line. Vacuum equipment and test electronics/data acqisition will be needed in this lab. The lab has to be approved for the use of radioactive calibration sources. Sufficient space (about 3m × 4m) will be needed for eventual repair works, maintenance, and temporary storage.

34

D Commissioning a) magnetic field measurements:

Magnetic field measurements of the superconducting magnets of the EBIT and the Penning traps will be first done offline at the institutes involved. For the final installation at FAIR a mapping of the magnetic fields in the near and far environment of MATS has to be performed to check the eventual influence of the strong (but shielded) magnetic field to the beamline and to other experiments. For the mapping a NMR probe will be used. Note: External magnetic field sources and magnetic field fluctuations in the environment have to be avoided. The stray field of the EBIT and the Penning trap magnets will be minimized by shielding.

b) alignment: The alignment of the setup is very crucial since the injection of the highly-charged ions into the strong magnetic field is extremely critical. Help by an expert is needed for the alignment of the setup at its final position in the cave. Standard optical geodesic instrumentation should be available. The alignment of detectors can be done along with alignment of traps onto the beam axis.

c) test runs: Since all tests can be performed with an off-line ion source or with highly-charged ions from the EBIT only a very limited amount of shifts for test runs will be requested.

E Operation a) of each of the sub-projects

With respect to the Super-FRS, all MATS experiments will operate at fixed conditions for periods of several hours up to several days. Experimental concerns are limited to the manipulation of low energy ionic ensembles from the gas stopper and to the production, transport and detection of the highly-charged ions. Both aspects are decoupled from the operation of the production facility and will be performed by members of the MATS collaboration. For the stability of the system (vacuum, voltage, magnetic fields, etc.) it is required to have all individual components of MATS most of the time under full operation, even without a running radioactive beam experiment. The superconducting magnets will be cooled down without any interruption and need therefore permanent maintenance, i.e. filling of LN2 and LHe.

b) auxiliaries During the on-line operation of MATS stable conditions in respect to room temperature, magnetic stray fields etc. are mandatory to perform high-precision experiments. In addition crane movements and ramping of magnets in the near environment have to be avoided during operation since they cause magnetic field fluctuations in the trapping region and thus frequency shifts and systematic errors.

c) power, gas, cryo, etc: electrical power supplies: RFQ: 15 kW for high-voltage power supplies, pumps (including beamline) etc. q/A separation: 10 kW magnet power supply EBIT: 25 kW cryocooler power supply, trap power supplies, and pumps

35

Penning traps and detectors: 20 kW for cryocoolers, 15 kW for remaining components including detectors. Beamline: Already included in the numbers given above. In total: 85 kW (these numbers are preliminary estimates since they depend on the final construction and components) General comment: A galvanically decoupled power grid for measurement electronics and a central grounding point has to be provided. cryo systems: RFQ: The RFQ will be operated either at LN2 or LHe temperature. EBIT: One to two cryocoolers will be operated at the EBIT Penning Traps: The superconducting magnets need LN2 and LHe cooling. Thus, a permanent liquid nitrogen line and a helium recovery line should be installed. The cryogenic trap systems will be installed in a cryogenic free cold head cryostat. The superconducting magnets need about 300 liters of LN2 per week and 120 liters of LHe per month. gas systems: Only small quantities of high purity gases needed for the RFQ, the EBIT, and for the trap system (the later only in the case of using singly charged ions and performing buffer-gas cooling). General comment: Pressurized air is needed for the MCP detectors and vacuum valves along the beam line.

F Safety a. General safety considerations:

The electrical safety of the setup will be assured at both sites by the responsible teams.

b. Radiation Environment: The EBIT device is setup within a radiation control area. All other components of MATS are freely accessible since the experiments will be performed with one or a few radioactive ions per second.

c. Safety systems: The high magnetic fields of the EBIT and the Penning traps are to be indicated with signs at the laboratory entrances. The high voltage of the RFQ and the EBIT will be indicated as well. Only authorized people are allowed to enter the experimental area.

36

G Organization and Responsibilities, Planning a. WBS- work package break down structure:

According to the defined milestones in section G.e (see below) the following working packages are identified for each subproject. Each of them can be pursued by a PhD student supervised by a PostDoc. RFQ:

Simulation studies and definition of the dimensions Design of the cryogenic RFQ ion beam cooler and buncher based on the system at

LEBIT/MSU Ordering, machining, and assembling of the vacuum components and RFQ structure Commissioning tests of vacuum and voltage. Determination of the performance (cooling time, emittance, and efficiency) with stable

ions from the off-line ion source Implementation into the MATS setup and acceptance tests with ions from the low energy

branch gas cell EBIT:

Definition of the required EBIT specification for charge breeding of short-lived radionuclides Order/Delivery of the magnet and vacuum parts. Design and machining of the customized parts (trap structure, electron gun etc.) Assembling of the EBIT and first commissioning tests of vacuum and voltage Ion production and charge breeding tests. Measurements of charge state distribution, breeding

time, breeding efficiency etc. with stable ions Installation at MATS and connection to the RFQ, MPS, and Penning trap system. Commissioning tests with stable ions Measurements with radioactive ions from the RFQ and determination of the physics

performance q/A selection:

Beam dynamics simulations. Design of the MPS: Specification of the magnet, the electrostatic lenses and the required

vacuum chambers. Order/Delivery of the magnet and vacuum parts. Machining of the customized parts. Installation at MATS and connection to the EBIT and Penning trap system. Commissioning tests with ions from the EBIT and other off-line ion sources.

Preparation and precision Penning trap: (the design, development, machining and tests are similar and all take place at similar times, so only one list is provided for both systems)

Definition of the specification of the superconducting magnets, especially with respect to the required homogeneity of the magnetic field and the dimension of each magnet bore

Simulations and design of the Penning traps with respect to, e.g., the dimensions and materials (influence on homogeneity) and especially the FT-ICR detection systems

Design of an off-line ion source for later tests of the Penning trap systems Design of the cryogenic system for the precision Penning trap, especially with respect to

the ion detection with the narrow band FT-ICR detection system Simulations of the beam transport from the external ion source to the preparation trap,

then to the precision trap, and finally to the MCP/Channeltron detector Design of the injection/ejection into/from the Penning traps in close collaboration to

the simulations of the beam transport

37

Construction of the Penning traps (1.5 years) Ordering and delivery of the superconducting magnets including the installation at the

final positions (1.5 years) Development and commissioning of the control system (1.5 years) Machining and installation of the beam line between and inside the superconducting

magnets (1.5 years) Installation of the detectors for mass spectrometry and spectroscopy and first off-line tests Installation of the Penning traps and first off-line tests Check of the accuracy of the spectroscopy detectors, first off-line mass measurements

with a check of the accuracy of the measured reference masses Instrumentation (detectors) for mass spectrometry:

Design of the MCP/Channeltron detector combination with corresponding simulation and optimization of electrodes and ion optics.

Construction of MCP/Channeltron detectors with following off-line tests of the ion detection efficiency and connection to the computerized control system.

Ordering and testing of a broad band FT-ICR system. Some tests can be performed at existing Penning trap experiments of collaborators.

Design of a narrow band FT-ICR system in close connection to the design of the precision Penning trap. This includes especially the design of low-noise detection electronics for cryogenic temperatures

Ordering and off-line testing of narrow band FT-ICR system and corresponding electronics Installation of the MCP/Channeltron detectors, the broad band FT-ICR system and the

narrow band FT-ICR system at MATS and first off-line tests (each system will be prepared by one PhD student)

Commissioning tests and off-line mass measurements of ions from off-line ion source In-trap conversion electron spectroscopy detectors:

Design of the segmented Si(Li) detector layout with corresponding simulation studies Design and manufacturing of the support structure Ordering and off-line testing of the detectors including specification measurements Implementation into the Penning trap setup and commissioning measurements with

radioactive ions

b. Structure of experiment management: The whole project is embedded in the NUSTAR activities at the FAIR facility. This means that the NUSTAR management structures will be available and used for interproject contacts and collaboration. MATS has representatives in all working groups within NUSTAR that are relevant to the trap setup. MATS has a spokesperson (K. Blaum) and two deputy spokespersons (J. Crespo, F. Herfurth). F. Herfurth is at the same time GSI contact person. The subproject leaders are taking the responsibility for different parts of MATS. The subprojects and their members are the following (marked in bold are the main responsibles or subproject leaders):

EBIT: José Crespo, Tomas Fritioff, Oliver Kester, D. Schneider, Joachim Ullrich q/A selection: Tomas Fritioff, M. Block, Sophie Heinz, Oliver Kester Traps (RFQ and Penning trap): F. Herfurth, Alban Kellerbauer, Stefan Kopecky, David

Lunney, Gerrit Marx, Jurek Szerypo, Christine Weber Instrumentation for mass spectrometry: Klaus Blaum, Alexander Herlert, Christine Weber,

Sophie Heinz, Chabouh Yazidjian Detectors for decay spectroscopy: Frank Herfurth, Ari Jokinen, Iain Moore, Peter Thirolf Physics case: Juha Äystö, Klaus Blaum, Jose Crespo, Hans Geissel, Frank Herfurth,

David Lunney, Yuri Novikov, Christoph Scheidenberger, Lutz Schweikhard, Peter Thirolf

38

c. Responsibilities and Obligations: Abbreviations: UO – University of Orsay (CSN - CSNSM/IN2P3-Orsay), UT – University of Tübingen, UGW – University of Greifswald, UEN – University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, GSI – Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung Darmstadt, UMZ – University of Mainz, UG – University of Gießen, UJ – University of Jyväskylä, LLNL – Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, LMU – Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, HD – Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, Heidelberg, ULB – Universite Libre des Bruxelles, MSU – Michigan State University, SU – Stockholm University, VECC - Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata

Orsay (UO) intends to contribute to the beamline, the control system, and to design and construct the off-line ion source as well as contributions to the buncher and Penning trap systems. Support (0.5 evaluator year) for the data analysis and atomic mass evaluation is available. Furthermore Workshop access is guaranteed.

The Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen (UT) is strongly interested in laser spectroscopic studies on trapped singly and highly-charged ions. Financial support can not be promised at the present stage, but combined efforts to adapt the RFQ buncher as well as the trap setups (EBIT and Penning traps) is mandatory.

The University of Greifswald (UGW) is strongly interested in the mass spectrometry detection techniques and intents to apply for the required money to design and construct the time-of-flight cyclotron resonance detector as well as the Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance detector. One PhD student and one PostDoc will mainly work on this project. One workshop person is permanently available.

One PhD student from the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg (UEN) and from the Universite Libre des Bruxelles (ULB) will mainly work on the nuclear structure theory and on ion-ion interaction calculations. Theory support is also promised from Michigan State University (MSU).

GSI Darmstadt will provide a LabView-based control system which can be implemented by using the Control System (CS) framework which has been developed by DVEE/GSI during the last two years. In addition manpower support is promised for the Penning trap design.

The institute of physics of the University of Mainz intents to apply for money for one of the superconducting Penning trap magnets including electronics. In addition one PostDoc and two PhD students will work on the trap design and construction. Workshop access for the full construction period is guaranteed.

Gießen (UG) provides support for ion simulations studies, mandatory for the design of the RFQ and Penning traps.

LMU Munich (LMU) is willing to contribute to the development of the in-trap spectroscopy technique, especially aiming at in-trap conversion electrons. At appropriate time funding will be requested for equipment and personnel.

JYFL (UJ) is willing to contribute in a similar manner to that explained above for LMU, i.e. participating in the development of related techniques. However, it is worth noticing that the JYFL contribution is mainly of in-kind support, not direct investment to GSI. For example, an existing in-trap project at JYFL and availability of a large bore (diameter 160) superconducting solenoid (7 T) provides a good basis for research, development and testing of new techniques both off-line and on-line.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory provides knowledge for the design and construction of the EBIT.

39

The Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg (HD) is strongly interested in the experimental possibilities described in the current proposal, and in particular in using the radioactive isotopes for precision spectroscopic measurements. Therefore the MPI-K is committed to obtain and contribute the funding necessary for the charge breeding EBIT setup, and to support it during the construction with the personnel needed at the MPI-K site. Experiments and operation of the EBIT at the MATS facility will also be supported by our staff. Workshop access during the construction phase is guaranteed.

Members from the Michigan State (MSU) provide simulation programs to calculate magnetic field distributions and ion trajectories within a Penning trap as well as a RFQ ion beam cooler and buncher. MSU is also willing to contribute to the Penning trap design and construction work.

The SMILETRAP group from the University of Stockholm (SU) has outstanding experience in charge breeding with an EBIS and high-precision Penning trap mass spectrometry. They support the design and construction of the EBIT and the Penning traps.

d. Cost and Manpower Estimates i. for R&D phase:

Beamline: Manpower estimates – 1 PostDoc man year for calculations of vacuum requirements, specification of pumps etc.

Off-line ion source: Manpower estimates – None since an existing ISOLTRAP design will be used.

RFQ: Manpower estimates – 1 PhD man year for simulation and design studies based on existing RFQ systems, e.g. at ISOLTRAP, JYFLTRAP, and in Orsay. EBIT: Manpower estimates – maximum 1 PhD man year since the device uses an existing design adapted to the new conditions.

q/A Selection: Manpower estimates – 1 PhD for 0.5 to 1 years to adapt the existing design to the requirements and for simulation studies.

Preparation Penning trap: Manpower estimates – 1 PostDoc man year and two PhD man years for the design and the specification of the trap system including magnet, traps, and injection/ejection beamline. Costs estimates – 15 kEUR / year for two years (PCs, simulation programs, travel costs, etc.) see also construction phase.

Measurement Penning trap: Manpower estimates – 1.5 PostDoc man-years and two PhD man years for the design and the specification of the trap system including magnet, traps, and injection/ejection beamline. Costs estimates: 15 kEUR / year for two years (PCs, simulation programs, travel costs, etc.) see also construction phase.

40

In-trap conversion electron spectroscopy detectors: Manpower estimates – 1 PhD + 0.5 supervising PostDoc for 2 years; access to design engineer and mechanical/electronics workshop

Instrumentation (detectors) for mass spectrometry: Manpower estimates – 1 PhD man year for the specifications of the detector systems General comment: Cost estimates – see also construction phase Total cost and manpower estimates for the R&D phase (2 years phase): 4.5 PostDoc years, 10 PhD years, 60 kEUR (see also cost estimates in the construction phase)

ii. for Construction phase: Beamline: Manpower estimates – 1 PostDoc man year and 1 PhD man year, 2 year mechanical workshop Cost estimates: No: Item: ~Costs / kEUR: 1 Beamlines for highly-charged ions including pumps and valves (estimated 25 kEUR / m) 250 2 2×Faraday Cup Detectors including linear feedthroughs, vacuum housing, UHV BNC feedthroughs 8 3 Digital picoampere meter 4 4 6×matched pair MCP detectors mounted on linear feedthroughs 18 5 6×UHV setups with SHV feedthroughs for MCP detectors 15 6 MCP HV power supplies (other electronics including in Mass spectrometry detectors, which need the same equipment) 5 7 Beam transport electronics, power supplies etc. (estimated 10 kEUR / m) 10 Overall costs kEUR: ~400 Off-line ion source: Manpower estimates – 1 PhD man year to adapt an existing ISOLTRAP design, minor technical support (mechanics, electronics) Cost estimates: No: Item: ~Costs / kEUR: 1 XANTREX Current Power Supply 5 2 Vacuum chamber including water cooling, feedthroughs, pump etc. 15 3 Electron impact ion source, quadrupole mass filter and bender 15 4 Function generator DS345, power supplies, electronics etc. 15 5 Gas inlet system, needle valve, pressure control etc. 10 Overall costs kEUR: ~60 RFQ: Manpower requirements – 2 PhD man years, 1 year mechanical workshop Cost estimates: No: Item: ~Costs / kEUR: 1 Outer Vacuum Chamber 20

41

2 Other vacuum parts (pumps, controllers, valves, …) 100 3 Segmented rods, feedthroughs, etc. 30 4 Electronics (power supplies, fast switches, …) 80 5 Gas system (inlet system, control system, …) 20 6 Gas purification system (SAES) 5 7 Insulating transformer 5 Overall costs kEUR: ~260 EBIT: Manpower estimates – 1 PostDoc man year (existing design used), 2-3 PhD man year (including final installation at MATS), 8 man months main mechanical workshop, 2 man months technician support, 2 man months electronic engineer Cost estimates: No: Item: ~Costs / kEUR: 1 Superconducting magnet 6T, cryogen free and power supply 160 2 Vacuum chamber manufacturing 20 3 Other Vacuum components (pumps, controllers, 40 4 HV Power supplies 25 5 Low-voltage power supplies 10 6 Insulating transformer 5 7 Insulation cage, HV safety interlocking 10 8 Computer control system, Labview, IO cards 10 9 Electronic and electromechanical supplies 10 10 Cooling system, air-to-water and air-to-oil heat exchanger 6 11 Specialized material for drift tube etc. (OFC, Ti) 5 12 Sapphire and ceramic insulators (6 x CF150) 9 13 Support frame 5 14 Auxiliary raw materials 5 Overall costs kEUR: ~300 q/A Selection: Manpower estimates – 1 PhD for 2 years, minor technical support (months mechanics, electronics) Cost estimates: No: Item: ~Costs / kEUR: 1 Magnet and magnet power supply 50 2 Vacuum components and lenses 10 3 Power supplies for lenses (8 high-voltage supplies) 15 4 Vacuum valves, pumps, control units etc. 25 Overall costs kEUR: ~100 Preparation Penning trap: Manpower estimates - two PostDoc man-years and four PhD man-years. 1 man years technical staff. Cost estimates: No: Item: ~Costs / kEUR: 1 7 T supercond. magnet, field homogeneity < 1ppm / cm^3 200 2 Trap setup (OFHC electrodes, sapphire insulations, machining,…) 10 3 Trap electronics (frequency generators, amplifiers, power supplies, ...) 40

42

4 Timing generation 10 5 Vacuum system (getter pumps, prepumps, valve, ...) 80 6 Other vacuum items (feedthroughs, cables etc.) 20 7 Cryostat for cryogenic traps 65 8 Control system (LabView based, cards, drivers, ProfiBus, PCs, …) 25

Overall costs kEUR: ~450

Measurement Penning trap: Manpower estimates - three PostDoc man-year and four PhD man-years. 1 man years technical staff. Cost estimates: No: Item: ~Costs / kEUR: 1 7 T supercond. Magnet (large bore), homogeneity < 0.1ppm / cm^3 250 2 Trap setup (OFHC electrodes, sapphire insulations, machining,…) 10 3 Trap electronics (frequency generators, amplifiers, power supplies, ...) 60

4 Timing generation 10 5 Vacuum system (getter pumps, prepumps, valve, ...) 80 6 Other vacuum items (feedthroughs, cables etc.) 20 7 Cryostat for cryogenic traps 70 8 Control system (LabView based, cards, drivers, PCs) 20 9 Temperature and pressure stabilization 10

Overall costs kEUR: ~530

Instrumentation (detectors) for mass spectrometry: Manpower estimates – 1 PhD for 1 year, minor technical support (mechanics, electronics) Cost estimates for MCP/Channeltron detection: No: Item: ~Costs / kEUR: 1 2 Channeltrons 2 2 Power Supplies for Channeltrons and MCP Detector 6 3 2 segmented MCP Detectors each on a linear feedthrough 6 4 2 UHV setups (CF150 Double cross) with SHV feedthroughs 8 5 General equipment for MCP/Channeltron (NIM module discriminator, NIM module amplifier, NIM module Switch) 8 6 Multi channel analyser (MCA) 10 7 2×NIM crates 6 8 General material (racks, cables – lemo and BNC, …) 2 Cost estimates for narrow and broad band FT-ICR detection (in measurement and preparation Penning trap): No: Item: ~Costs / kEUR: 1 2×Agilent Frequency Generator AG33250A 6 2 2×180° Phase Shifter 2 3 2×Power Amplifier 20 4 2×Pre amplifier (low noise) 4 5 1× Transient recorder with special PC 20 Overall costs kEUR: ~100

43

In-trap conversion electron spectroscopy detectors: Manpower estimates – 2 PhD man years + 1 PostDoc man year, minor technical support (mechanics, electronics) Cost estimates: No: Item: ~Costs / kEUR:

Electron detectors (prizes based on EURISYS) 1 2 x 24-fold annular segmented Si(Li) detectors (500 mu thick):

2 x 17 kEUR 34 2 2x Peltier cooling element for Si(Li): 2 x 5 kEUR 10 Charged particle detectors (prices based on MICRON) 3 2 x 40x40 Double-Sided Silicon Strip Detectors (40x40mm, thickness 1mm): 2 x 3.5 kEUR 7 Electronics (prices based on MESYTEC and CAEN modules) 4 electron detectors: preamplifier, shaper, ADC 19 5 DSSSD's: preamplifier, shaper, ADC 80 6 HV power, logic modules 10 7 Cable sets, feedthroughs, etc. 5 Overall costs kEUR: ~165 Total cost and manpower estimates for the construction phase (4 years phase): 8 PostDoc years, 19 PhD years, 5-6 man years of technical support (mechanics, electronics, etc.) Total cost estimate for the MATS setup: 2365 kEUR Remark: The total cost estimate is about 700 kEUR higher than in the letter of intent because

we added a preparation Penning trap and the in-trap electron conversion spectroscopy detectors to this technical proposal. It might well be that the RFQ will later move to the gas buncher project of the Low Energy Branch of the Super-FRS due to common interests within other proposals.

iii. for Operation phase:

Beamlines: Manpower estimates: included in trap and spectroscopy operation Cost estimates: 20 kEUR / year for vacuum components, replacements etc.

RFQ: Manpower estimates: included in trap and spectroscopy operation Cost estimates: 1 kEUR / year for gas purification system, replacements etc.

Off-line Ion Source: Manpower estimates: included in trap and spectroscopy operation Cost estimates: 1 kEUR / year for gas purification system, replacements etc.

EBIT: Manpower estimates: One PostDoc per year for further optimization and EBIT experiments During operations, the cryogen-free design avoids the expense of liquid helium purchases. Cost estimates: 10 kEUR / year including consumables/travel.

Preparation and measurement Penning traps: Manpower estimates: Two PhD students and one PostDoc per year for full operation, off-line measurements, consumables/travel etc. Cost estimates: 30 kEUR / year

44

Instrumentation (detectors) for mass spectrometry: Manpower estimates: No additional manpower needed (will be operated together with the traps) Cost estimates: about 3 kEUR per year for MCP and Channeltron detector replacements

In-trap conversion electron spectroscopy detectors: Manpower estimates: 1 PhD per year (EBIT PostDoc can also contribute here) Cost estimates: 5 kEUR per year for consumables/travel, technical support on-site Total cost and manpower estimates for the operation phase: 2 PostDoc’s / year, 3 PhD’s / year, 70 kEUR / year

iv. Diagnostics: The spectroscopic diagnostic equipment will depend on the experiment. Existing MPI-K instrumentation will be brought to the MATS facility accordingly. All other diagnostics tools are included in the MATS project and cost plans/estimates given above.

e. Schedule with Milestones: RFQ cooler and buncher: The schedule for the assembling and testing of the RFQ cooler and buncher is given below. For the design, construction and off-line testing about 3 years are needed. The final implementation into the MATS setup and further checks and off-line mass measurements need another 1 year.

1 2 3 4 Year Milestone 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Simulations studies (ion injection and ejection)

RFQ construction + order Assembly of the RFQ parts

Vacuum + voltage tests Tests with an off-line ion

source, system specification

implementation of the RFQ at MATS

Acceptance tests with ions from the LEB gas cell

EBIT: The EBIT design will be based on an existing device, so not much development time is needed. A PostDoc should supervise the project at the beginning. The construction, setup, and test of the device can be done by a PhD student. The time schedule and milestones are given below.

1 2 3 4 Year Milestone 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Define EBIT final specifications Order / Delivery EBIT magnet

Ion optics simulation Mechanical design changes

Machining of parts Assembly drift tubes

45

Assembly electron gun, collector Overall assembly, vacuum test

High voltage and control system Ion production test

Ion injection and extraction tests Transfer to GSI and installation

at MATS

Tests with ions from an off-line ion source

Tests with (radioactive) ions from the LEB

q/A separation: The schedule for the assembling and testing of the q/m-selection with the MPS is given below. For the design, construction and off-line testing about 2 years are needed. The final implementation into the MATS setup and further checks and off-line mass measurements need another 1 year.

1 2 3 4 Year Milestone 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Design calculations MPS, Beam dynamics

MPS construction + order Assembly of the MPS parts

Vacuum tests Tests with singly charged ions

implementation of MPS at MATS

Tests with highly charged Ions from breeder

Penning traps: The schedule for the assembling and testing of the preparation and measurement Penning trap setup plus detectors, the most crucial part of the experiment, is given below. Depending on the progress the installation of the in-trap decay spectroscopy detectors will be done after the first off-line mass-spectrometry test measurements. For the installation of the setup at its final position about one year is needed.

1 2 3 4 Year Milestone 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Define SuMa specifications Order/Delivery SuMa

SuMa installation Trap simulation and design

Trap machining Trap completion

Detector / ion source Design injection/ejection

Control system Beam transport simulation/calc.

Beam line machining Beam line installation

46

Detector installation and tests Trap installation and tests

Accuracy check Off-line mass measurements

Instrumentation for mass spectrometry (TOF and FTICR detectors): The schedule for the assembling and testing of the detectors for mass spectrometry is given below. For the design, construction and off-line testing about two years are needed. For the final implementation into the MATS setup and further checks and off-line mass measurements another 2 years are needed.

1 2 3 4 Year Milestone 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Design MCP/Channeltron detectors

MCP/Channeltron detector construction and off-line tests

ordering and testing broad band FT-ICR system

design narrow band FTICR system

ordering and testing narrow band FT-ICR

implementation of MCP/Channeltron detectors

impementation of broad band FT-ICR

implementation of narrow band FT-ICR

System checks and off-line mass measurements

In-trap conversion electron spectroscopy detectors: The time schedule including milestones are given below. This subproject could be fulfilled within 2-3 years.

1 2 3 4 Year Milestone 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Define segmented Si(Li) layout Order/Delivery Si(Li)

Design/Manufacture support structures

Setup of laboratory test bench Off- and Online laboratory tests Setup of detector/electronics at

trap

Commissioning measurements f. Organization: see organization of NUSTAR and section G.b of this technical proposal

47

H Relation to other Projects

In the Technical Proposals of “SPARC” and “HITRAP” it is also proposed to measure masses of highly-charged ions but with the goal to determine atomic-electron binding energies, and to perform QED tests exploiting an expected mass precision of 10-10

and better. However, the measurements performed are complementary since they are not aiming for short-lived nuclei. These measurements are limited due to the used cooling and production techniques to nuclei with half-lives above 10s.

The other mass measurement project within NUSTAR is ILIMA, aiming for mass measurements with relative mass uncertainties of ~10-7 in storage rings. Due to the long cooling times access to very short-lived nuclei with an half-life below 1 s is not possible with ILIMA. For mass measurements at ILIMA absolute calibrants from other sources, such as MATS, are important.

The in trap spectroscopy aspect is closely linked to DESPEC. R&D on detectors, electronics and data acquisition partly overlaps. One should also reserve a possibility to transfer complete or partial detection setups to the end of the trap facility, where they can be applied in dedicated experiments requiring isomerically purified beams. The possibility to provide clean or even isomerically pure bunched beams is of high interest also for other experiments as e.g. LaSpec (Laser Spectroscopy for the study of nuclear properties). Concerning high-precision mass spectrometry we expect some eventual common effort related to the SPIRAL2 project. I Other issues

The Physics Advisory Committee proposed to explore the possibility of having a joined proposal between ILIMA and MATS. After detailed discussions both sides are of the opinion that due the vastly different technical approaches and mass measurement techniques involved, a combined proposal is not advantageous. However, there is a close collaboration between MATS and ILIMA concerning the physics case. Yuri Novikov (the ILIMA spokesperson) has joined the MATS collaboration in order to ensure the closest possible interaction. With the same intentions Klaus Blaum (the MATS spokesperson) joins the working group on the physics case for ILIMA.

J References and Acknowledgements [Abel2002] H. Abele et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 211801. [Alex2004] T. Alexopoulos et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 181802. [Amor2004] M. Amoretti et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 518 (2004) 679. [Audi2003] G. Audi, A.H. Wapstra and C. Thibault, Nucl. Phys. A 729 (2003) 337. [Beck2003] D. Beck and H. Brandt, GSI Scientific Rep. 2002 (2003) 210. [Beck2004] D. Beck et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 527 (2004) 567. [Beie1998] P. Beiersdorfer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 3022. [Beie2003] Th. Beier et al., HITRAP Tech. Design Rep., GSI 2003 (2003). [Bend2004] M. Bender, G.F. Bertsch, P.-H. Heenen, preprint nucl-th/0410023 (2004). [Blau2002] K. Blaum et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 15 (2002) 245. [Blau2003] K. Blaum et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 204 (2003) 331. [Blau2004] K. Blaum et al., Europhys. Lett. 67 (2004) 586. [Boll2001] G. Bollen, Nucl. Phys. A 693 (2001) 3. [Boll2004] G. Bollen, Lect. Notes Phys. 651 (2004) 169. [Bren1990] D.S. Brenner et al., Phys. Lett. B 243 (1990) 1. [Brow1986] L.S. Brown and G. Gabrielse, Rev. Mod. Phys. 58 (1986) 233. [Caki2004] R.B. Cakirli et al., submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. (2004) and private communication. [Camp2002] P. Campbell et al., Phys. Lett. Lett. 89 (2002) 082501.

48

[Cres2001] J. R. Crespo López-Urrutia et al., Physica Scripta TB92 (2001) 110. [Cres2004] J. R. Crespo López-Urrutia et al., Rev. Scient. Instr. 75 (2004) 1560. [Deut1988] J. Deutsch, in: Workshop on the breaking of fundamental symmetries in nuclei, Santa

Fe, 1988; B.R. Holstein and S.B. Treiman, Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 2369. [Dill2003] J. Dilling et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 204 (2003) 492. [Eide2004] S. Eidelmann et al., Particle Data Group, Phy. Lett. B 592 (2004) 1. [Flei2004] P. Fleischer et al., Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 054321. [Foge1999] B. Fogelberg et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 1823. [Gori2003] S. Goriely et al., Phys. Rev. C 68 (2003) 054325; M. Samyn et al., Nucl. Phys. A 700

(2002) 024308; F. Tondeur et al., Phys. Rev. C 62 (2000) 024308. [Gras1975] B. Grasemann, Atomic Inner Shell Processes, Academic Press (1975). [Hagi2002] K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 010001. [Hard2004] J.C. Hardy and I.S. Towner, submitted to Phys. Rev. C (2004). [Herf2001a] F. Herfurth et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 142501. [Herf2001b] F. Herfurth et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 469 (2001) 254. [Kell2001] A. Kellerbauer et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 469 (2001) 276. [Kell2003] A. Kellerbauer et al., Eur. Phys. J. D 22 (2003) 53. [Kell2004] A. Kellerbauer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 072502. [Klug2003] J. Kluge et al., Physica Scripta T104 (2003) 167. [Klug2004] J. Kluge and K. Blaum, Nucl. Phys. A 746 (2004) 200c. [Köni1995] M. König et al., Int. J. Mass Spec. Ion Processes 142 (1995) 95. [Laka1992] Andreas Lakatos, Diploma thesis, J.W. Goethe-University Frankfurt, 1992. [Lang1988] P. Langacker and D. London, Phys. Rev. D 38 (1988) 886. [Lang1992] P. Langacker and M. Luo, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 278. [Liao2001] Y. Liao and X. Li, Phys. Lett. B 503 (2001) 301. [Lunn2003] D. Lunney, J.M. Pearson and C. Thibault, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 (2003) 1021. [Maal1990] J. Maalampi and M. Roos, Phys. Rep. 186 (1990) 53. [Marc1986] W.J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 (1986) 22. [Marc1987] W.J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D 35 (1987) 1672. [Mars1998] A.G.Marshall et al., Mass Spectrom. Rev. 17 (1998) 1. [Miro2003] V. Mironov et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 205 (2003) 183. [Mukh2004] M. Mukherjee et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 150801. [Niem2001] A. Nieminen et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 469 (2001) 244. [Niem2002] A. Nieminen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 094801. [Quin2001] W. Quint et al., Hyp. Int. 132 (2001) 457. [Schw2001] S. Schwarz et al., Nucl. Phys. A 693 (2001) 533. [Schw2003] S. Schwarz et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 204 (2003) 474. [Schw2003] S. Schwarz et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 204 (2003) 507. [Sher2003] A. Sher et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 261802. [Sobi2001] A. Sobiczewski et al. Phys. Rev. C 63 (2001) 034306. [Town2003] I.S. Towner and J.C. Hardy, J. Phys. G 29 (2003) 197. [VanI1995] P. Van Isacker, D.D. Warner and D.S. Brenner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 4607. [VanR2004] J. Van Roosbroeck et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 112501. [Waps2003] A.H. Wapstra et al., Nucl. Phys. A 729 (2003) 129. [Webe2004] C. Weber, Doctoral thesis, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, 2004. [Weis2002] L. Weissman et al., Nucl. Instr. Methods A 492 (2002) 451. [Wend2004] K. Wendt et al., Nucl. Phys. A 746 (2004) 47c. [Yama2002] T. Yamazaki et al., Phys. Rep. 366 (2002) 183. [Zhan1989] J.-Y. Zhang, R.F. Casten and D.S. Brenner, Phys. Lett. B 227 (1989) 1. Acknowledgements:

49

50

The members of the MATS collaboration thank Prof. Dr. Peter Butler (CERN/ISOLDE, Switzerland) and Prof. Dr. Rick Casten (Yale University, USA) for valuable comments to this technical proposal. The MATS spokesperson (Klaus Blaum) is supported by the Helmholtz Association of National Research Centres (HGF) under Contract No. VH-NG-037.

technical proposal - fair-center.de [ ] date: 15.01.2005 technical proposal for the design,...

Documents