MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 1

Based on Muon collider ideas and development (Palmer et al, 92->), the Neutrino Factory concept (Geer, 1998) resonated in 1998 with the final demonstration of Atmospheric Neutrino Oscillations by the SuperK Collaboration.
International workshops:
NUFACT 99 (Lyon, France)
NUFACT 00 (Montery, California)
NUFACT 01 (Tsukuba, Japan)
NUFACT 02 (London, UK)
NUFACT 03 (Columbia,NY,USA)
NUFACT 04 (Osaka, Japan)
NUFACT 05 (Frascati,Italy)
 Neutrino Factory is the ultimate tool for study of Neutrino Oscillations
-- unique source of high energy n
--reach/sensitivity better by order(s) of magnitude wrt other techniques (e.g. super-beams) for e m +  e + n e
_ n m
* q
1 3
*
n e
 n m
n t
NB : leptonic CP violation is a key ingredient in the leading explanations for the mystery of the baryon-antibaryon asymmetry in our universe
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 2

MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005
~NOvA +PD
3

• CERN should make every reasonable effort to deliver the approved p.o.t. to CNGS.
• Future neutrino facilities offer great promise for fundamental discoveries. CERN should join the world effort in developing technologies for new facilities : Beta beams, Neutrino Factory …wherever they are sited.
• Focus now on enabling CERN to do the best choice by
2010 on future physics programme.
• Explore further synergies with EURISOL
17 December 2004 Council Meeting, J.Feltesse
13
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 4

An ambitious neutrino programme is a distinct possibility, but it must be well prepared to have a good proposal in time for the big decision period in 2010 (Funding window: 2011-2020)
Avenues identified as promising a) Superbeam alone + large detector(s) (e.g. T2HK, NOvA) a) SuperBeam + Beta-Beam + Megaton detector (SB+BB+MD) Fréjus b) Neutrino Factory (NuFact) + magnetic detector (40kton)+…
The physics abilities of the neutrino factory are superior but….. « what is the realistic time scale? »
(Hardware) cost estimate of a neutrino factory ~1B€ + detectors.
This needs to be verifed and ascertained on a localized scenario (CERN,
RAL…) and accounting.
The cost of a (BB+SB+MD) is not very different
Cost

MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 5

Physics compare performance of various options on equal footing of parameters and conventions and agreed standards of resolutions, simulation etc.
identify tools needed to do so
(e.g. Globes upgraded) propose « best values » of baselines, beam energies etc..
MICE and the SCOPING STUDY…
Detectors (NEW!)
Water Cherenkov (1000kton)
Magnetized Iron Calorimeter (50kton)
Low Z scintillator (100 kton)
Liquid Argon TPC (100 kton)
Hybrid Emulsion (4 kton)
Peter Dornan
Near detectors (and instrumentation)
AB
Accelerator: M.Zisman
-- proton driver (energy, time structure and consequences)
-- target and capture (chose target and capture system)
-- phase rotation and cooling
-- acceleration and storage + Ken Long evaluate economic interplays and risks include a measure of costing and safety assessment
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 6

NUFACT05 (Sunday 26 June 2005) launch of scoping study
September 2005: ISS report0
NUFACT06 (summer 2006) discussion of results of scoping study
September 2006 ISS report
2007 full design study proposal
2010 conclusions of Design Study & CDR
NB: This matches well the time scales set up at CERN
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 7

Particle physicist:
Q: Can a Neutrino Factory be built?
Accelerator physisicst:
A: YES!
(US Study II, CERN) but… it is expensive, and many ingredients have never been demonstrated!
 R&D is needed. (est. 5yrs) to
1. ascertain performance
2. reduce costs among critical items:
*** Acceleration ***
*** COOLING ***
Cooling component development programme+ ‘blast test’:
8

IONIZATION COOLING
this will surely work..!
….maybe…
A delicate technology and integration problem
Need to build a realistic prototype and verify that it works (i.e. cools a beam)
Difficulties lay in particular in
 operating RF cavities in Mag. Field,
 interface with SC magnets and LH2 absorbers
What performance can one get?
Difficulty: affordable prototype of cooling section only cools beam by 10%, while standard emittance measurements barely achieve this precision.
Solution: measure the beam particle-by-particle state-of-the-art particle physics instrumentation will test state-of-the-art accelerator technology.
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005
 RF Noise!!
9

D ( e out never done before either…
e in
-3
Spectrometer solenoid 1
Matching coils 1&2
Focus coils 1
Coupling Coils 1&2
Focus coils 2 Focus coils 3
Matching coils 1&2
Spectrometer solenoid 2 m
Beam PID
TOF 0
Cherenkov
TOF 1
RF cavities 1 RF cavities 2
Variable
Diffuser
Liquid Hydrogen absorbers 1,2,3
Incoming muon beam
Trackers 1 & 2 measurement of emittance in and out
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005
Downstream particle ID:
TOF 2
Cherenkov
Calorimeter
10

Aims: demonstrate feasibility and performance of a section of cooling channel
Main challenges:
RF in magnetic field!
10 -3 meas. of emittance
Safety issues
4T spectrometer II
Final PID:
TOF
Cherenkov
Calorimeter
Cooling cell (~10%) b =5-45cm, liquid H
2
, RF
Status:
Approved at RAL(UK)
First beam: 04-2007
Funded in: UK,CH,JP,NL,US
Requests: Be,CH,It,JP,US
4T spectrometer I
TOF
Singlem beam
~200 MeV/c
Some prototyping:
Liquid-hydrogen absorbers
200MHz RF cavity with beryllium windows
11

1. Operate RF cavities of relatively low frequency (200 MHz) at high gradient
(16 MV/m) in highly inhomogeneous magnetic fields (1-3 T) dark currents (can heat up LH
2
), breakdowns
2. Hydrogen safety (substantial amounts of LH
2 in vicinity of RF cavities)
3. Emittance measurement to relative precision of 10 -3 in environment of RF bkg requires low mass and precise tracker low multiple scattering redundancy to fight dark current induced background excellent immunity to RF noise require complete set of PID detectors (INFN)
And…
4. Obtaining funding for R&D towards a facility that is not (yet) in the plans of a major lab
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 12

NUFACT00
2000-2001
NUFACT01 7:30 am
Sept. 2001
November 2001
January 2002
June 2002
January 2003
July 2003
October 2003
December 2003
June 2004
20 December 2004
Re-activated the recognized need for muon cooling expt
Workshops on Muon Cooling Experiment
(CERN, Chicago, London)
Steering group formed
Workshop at CERN where final experiment took shape.
Letter of Intent (LOI) submitted to PSI and RAL
PSI cannot host experiment, will collaborate (beam solenoid)
RAL IPRP Review Panel encouraged submission of a proposal
Proposal submitted
Recommendation by International Peer Review Panel
‘Scientific approval’ letter by RAL CEO JohnWood
Project Manager appointed (P. Drumm, RAL)
RAL CM: collaboration charter approved
Gateway 1 review
Gateway 1 passed on ‘amber’
Gateway 2/3 passed 10 green + 4 amber (MICE PHASE I)
March 2005 Release of funding approved by PPARC and CCLRC 9.7 M£
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 13

at this point MICE (PhaseI) is an approved and funded project in 5 countries
-- UK: 9.7M£
-- USA: 1.2 M$ approved for next three years (NSF+DOE)
( +RF source + MRI proposal -- some success)
+ propose to build solenoid magnet within MC budget
(+ longer term plan for Coupling coil) (Zisman at CB)
-- Japan: US-Japan ~$100k/yr , UK-Japan (travel funds)
(+ 500k$ requested)
-- Switzerland: PSI solenoid + Uni-Geneva-NSwissF (80KCHF/yr)+ 1 PDA+1PhDS
-- Netherlands: Mag probes (in production!) + 1 PhDS
+ Proposal submitted in Italy (TOF, Calorimeter) and Belgium (Cherenkov)
MICE is CERN recognized experiment RE11.
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 14

m
-
implementation in steps
April 2007 physics-based: understanding of systematics
October 2007 all configurations successfully matched optically
2008
2008
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005
2008?
2009?
15

MICE is being designed simulated reviewed
MOU’ed dug prototyped and built!
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 16

SIMULATION
-- beam line : Turtle (Kevin Tilley) + G4beamline (Tom Roberts) match input beam (quads and dipoles) to MICE (solenoid)
600 ‘good muons’ per ISIS spill should be achievable
 10 -3 emittance measurement in 1 hr (stat)
(work to do for diffuser, variety of optics, etc…)
-- optics (Bob Plamer, Ulisse Bravar) ICOOL all steps of MICE have been optically matched
(but not to the beam) both in flip mode and solenoid mode
(proposed by Migliorati et al)
-- physics simulation (G4MICE, Y. Torun et al)
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 17

SIMULATION and software.
‘Simple things should be easy and complicated things should be possible’
Sci-fi simulation of the measurement includes noise dead channels etc..
(Malcolm Ellis et al)
‘Students are taking over the project’
Yagmur Torun
G4MICE-ICOOL comparison Chris Rogers
Right ICOOL less than 10 -3 difference between true and reconstructed
Left G4MICE good to 20 ps and a few 100 keV
RF emission of X-rays (Rikard Sandstrom)
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 18

requirements on spectrometer system:
1a reject incoming e, p, p ( TOF 0, TOF1)
1.b reject outgoing e => TOF2, Cerenkov + Calorimeter
2. measure x,y,Px, Py E (tracker) and t (TOF counters) to build 6D emittance particle by particle
3. resolution better than 10% of width at equilibrium emittance s 2 meas
= s 2 true
+ s 2 res
= s 2 true
[ 1+ ( s res
/ s true
)2 ]
(  correction less than 1%)
4. robust against noise from RF cavities
 Sci-Fi tracker was validated with calculations based on G4MICE
-- experimental input from prototype (dead channels, efficiency, resolution)
-- calculated spectrum and time structure of RF field emission based on LabG 800MHz
-- still will need to be scrupulous about multiple scattering in tracker  stepIII
Sci-fi prototype II presently assembled
 test at KEK in magnetic field (october)
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 19

MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 20

Now same exercize needs to be done for TOF requires measured 50ps resolution
 double layer scintillator construction of TOF0 prototype this year
(Milano,Pavia, Padova, Geneva) funding available (GVA), proposal submitted (Italy)
50ps from tracker energy resolution
1%
TOF0 (R4998 Hamamatsu with Bicron scintillator)
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 21

DAQ, controls and monitoring working group aims understand what instrumentation is needed and what data are needed at which frequency (per spill, per muon, independently) in order to perform comparison of data with simulation at the level of 10 -3 started to meet here at Frascati, will have dedicated workshop
(so far: Bross+Yoshida+Graulich+Radicioni+Drumm
 will need some accelerator physicists!)
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 22

MICE is foresen with 8 RF cavities
Closed with curved Be windows
(increase gradient / MW RF power)
201 MHz
First cavity prototyped
(MUCOOL)
Completion in April 2005
RF power sources :
Will be assembled from equipement refurbished from Berkeley, Los Alamos, CERN, RAL.
Needed 8 MW peak power  23 MV acceleration
Operation at LN2 foreseen to increase Volts / MW
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 23

RF circuits arrived from LBNL to Daresbury Lab.
Moss
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 24

Beam line and shielding, cryogenics
MICE:
Support systems, RF, services, …
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 25

MOU for PSI solenoid counter-signed
Paul Drumm
MICE Project Manager
Prof. John Wood RAL CEO
26

Safety Review process under way
Internal review organized in Berkeley in Dec. 2003
Reviewers:
D. Allspach (FNAL), G. Benincasa (CERN), M.
Seely (Jlab), L. Starritt (NASA), J. Weisend
(SLAC), J. Wells (RAL)
LH2
MLI
Evacuated buffer tank needed? NO
Burst valves and relief valves? YES
Separate vents for vacuum and hydrogen? YES
Detailed answers issued. Proceeding now to full safety revue (toward fall 2005) to be set up at this meeting
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 27

nominated to ensure that
MICE is designed and built according to appropriate and safe engineering and according to RAL safety rules.
This will happen with 3 successive milestones internal audit external review (production readiness) external review (OK to operate)
RAL Review production reviews pertinent to PHASE I will have to be passed
***before end 2005***
…!
Review
Document
Review
RAL
Operate
FINAL
Document
Audit
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 28

If all goes well and funding is adequate, Muon Ionization cooling will have been demonstrated and measured precisely by
2009
At that time:
MINOS and CNGS will have started and measured D m
13
2
J-Parc-SK (and reactor expt?) will be about to start (
LHC will be starting as well q more precisely
13 measurement
)
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 29

First beam 1st April 2007
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 30

AIMS of the meeting:
• review ongoing activities
• design and safety reviews: where do we stand?
• are we on track to be ready to take data in April 2007?
• design of diffuser, impact on running strategy?
• see formation of DAQ Controls and Monitoring group
• continue to broaden simulation effort  analysis forum
• creation of editorial board foreseen in MICE constitution
NB: we had 6 contributions to PAC05
NB we strongly encourage everyone to document their work within the framework of MICE with MICE Notes!
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 31

Editorial Board
This body approves publications from the Collaboration. Two types of publications are foreseen.
Collaboration Publications
These publications are issued as ‘MICE Collaboration’ publications and it is expected that all active members of the collaboration will sign. All analysis results from the experimental data are expected to be in this category as are descriptions of the experiment as a whole and its performance. These must be approved by the Editorial Board.
Limited Publications
Publications by a limited number of members of the collaboration concerning e.g. the construction and performance of specific subcomponents of the experiment. They are not issued as ‘MICE Collaboration’ publications, however it is recommended that these papers are also submitted to the Editorial Board for approval so that the management are aware of them and can advise of any possible conflicts with other members which may occur.
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 26-29 June 2005 32