This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 27

MICE PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

n. An International M uon I onization C ooling E xperiment. p. m. MICE. preliminary logo. TOWARDS A PROPOSAL. on 25 March, the MICE collaboration was invited to present a proposal to RAL, with the help of RAL since then RAL nominated a project engineer (Iouri Ivanichenkov).

Download Presentation


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


An International Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment




preliminary logo


on 25 March, the MICE collaboration was

invited to present a proposal to RAL,

with the help of RAL

since then RAL nominated a project engineer

(Iouri Ivanichenkov)

MICE found a home!


What will MICE be?

Who will do what?

Who will pay what?

When can/should this be done?

what will be the logo?

MICE Video Conferences and collaboration meetings

MUCOOL/MICE Collaboration meeting 22-26 October @Berkeley

Finalize who does what and cost estimates

Schedule remaining open questions (decision tree)

at that time the input to the proposal should be defined and proposal drafting underway.

Date of submission: 15 December 2002

Deadline for contributions 15 November 2002

dates for SG meeting

collaboration board meeting

dates for video conference

MICE Software workshop?

will be decided and proposed by next steering group phone meeting

(Friday 19 July 4 pm CEST)   comments => [email protected]

Time lines and cost estimates

will be collected by Mike Zisman and Rob Edgecock

(cc: A.B. -> steering group)

Technical specifications and service needs

will be collected by Iouri Ivaniouchenkov and Ed Black

(cc: AB and Rob Edgecock)

from MICE LOI :


The schedule of activities can be envisaged as follows,

assuming all milestones are passed successfully.

2002: Preparation of proposal and fund raising

Integrated simulation of experiment including beam, detectors and cooling cells

Evaluation of possible sources of systematic errors

Investigation of low equilibrium emittance lattice and of the compatibility with ring coolers

Continuous comparison of the 200 MHz and 88 MHz scenarios

Test of detectors in X ray environment (already underway) and choice of tracking devices

Operation of 88 MHz cavity at CERN and of the test facilities at Fermilab

Continued development of liquid hydrogen absorbers

Development of alternative schemes for absorbers

Competitive design and cost estimates for the solenoids

Constitution of a collaboration structure and more detailed distribution of tasks and

financial responsibilities

Evaluation with the host laboratory of the requirements on space, facilities, safety

and radiation issues, and infrastructure

Submission of proposal in the course of 2002.


  • Find a home for the experiment

  • Understand the X ray issue and quantify it in terms of

  • particle detector performance

  • 2.’ Develop reconstruction with noise and efficiencies

  • 3. Choose detectors

  • 3’. Finalize parameters

  • 4. Establish technical specs and cost estimates

  • 4’ Distribute contributions and begin fund hunt mission

  • 5. Write proposal


getting there, BRAVO!

Crisis… see Hanke’s talk

no, but define set of criteria, actions and decision points

Some pending questions..>

  • pending questions

  • what is the beam size in the cavities (to minimize Be foils dimensions)

  • thickness of liq. H2 absorbers

  • distance between spectrometer solenoid and cooling cell.

  • … … …

After 1m

in = 0

in = 1.330

in = 0.670





muons defocused by fringe field

. Observed dark currents in 800MHz cavity in lab G.

The cavity could not be run at a gradient higher than 5 MV/m without emitting one electron or more within a time window of 20 ns. (i.e. 10-8 mA)

new curves indicate 10 MV/m

Q. Is this the right figure of merit?

with 200 MHz?

Better probably: observed noise rate in

actual detector near the cavity.

=> 6.70 MV/m

=> 4.65 MV/m

.43 X 4 cells = 1.7 m  11.5 MV for 1X 4 = 6.70 MV/m

16 MV for 2X4 = 4.65 MV/m

16 MV for 1X4 = 9.3 MV/m

First go at very incomplete tables of who does what

First go at very incomplete tables of who does what

to be shared as

common fund

global supervision of coils necessary










Suggestion: Mike Green will organize a get-together of those who could bid for the magnets

and share (at least the cost, maybe construction) and come up with a proposal.

First go at very incomplete tables of who does what

common funds


First go at very incomplete tables of who does what

to be shared

point was made that slow control and online reconstruction should be addressed


Simulation of performance of cooling cell fairly well understood.

Now needed :

… simulation of detector response, for design of e.g. downstream PID

or to understand performance of Sci-Fi or TPG

and first go at some systematics-----

… groundwork by Janot needs to be extended

Yagmur has started with a GEANT4 version of MICE.

ðothers (Steve Kahn, Vladimir Grichine, more needed)

begin or volunteered

to implement detector responses and reconstruction

conceptual thinking of systematic uncertainties in the measurement needed

Proposed grand time line:

2001 Expose detectors to RF radiation (potential show stopper)

write first description of experiment with two options

US design (200 MHz) or CERN design (88 MHz)

US simulate CERN scheme [and vice versa if possible]

Evaluate availability and cost of main cost drivers:

RF cavities / amplifiers/ power supplies/solenoids

for each scheme evaluate beams + host labs

1st workshop 25-27 October 2001, CERN

! 16 Nov. 2001 ! Chose technology + host lab, write +


25 March 2002 CLRC review

June 2002 CLRC + PPARC invite submission of proposal

end 2002 Proposal submission

end 2004 1st beam (debugging of spectrometers)


GOAL: The long-term goal is to have a Conceptual Design Report

for a Neutrino Factory Complex by the time of JHF and LHC start-up,

so that, by that date, this would be a valid option for the future of HEP

(European Muon Coordination and Oversight Group, April 2002)


MICE must have measured cooling end 2006

draft Proposal for MICE proposal Layout

overall edition: Blondel & Kaplan

  • Executive Summary 1 page

  • table of contents 1 page

  • full author list -------!!!!!! 2 pages

  • responsibility structure 1 page

  • General motivation (S.Geer & K. Long)

  • 1.1 Neutrinos and our lives (PR motivation)

  • 1.2 Neutrino oscillations and the role of NuFact (Particle physics motivation)

  • 1.3 other physics at NuFact complex and Muon collider

  • 1.4 Neutrino Factory description (the accelerator)

  • 1.5 Role of cooling in Neutrino Factory and muon collider,

  • the need for MICE (Acc. physics motivation) 6 pages

  • 2. Cooling (Kaplan)

  • 2.1 principle of Ionization cooling

  • 2.2 cooling channel design

  • 2.3 possible extensions (gas cooling and ring coolers) 5 pages

  • 3. The International Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment (Blondel, Hanke, Palmer)

  • 3.1 Layout and principle

  • 3.2 Experiments to be performed

  • 3.3 Expected performance and statistical precision

  • 3.4 Systematic errors and resulting requirements

  • 3.5 possible development of the experiment in time 8 pages

draft Proposal for MICE proposal Layout (ctd)

4. The magnetic channel (Green/Rey)

4.1 layout and optics (Palmer / Fernow)

4.2 design of coils (Green/Rey)

4.3 services (->move to infrastructure chapter 10)

4.4 magnetic measurements (Rey)

4.5 return flux and constraints 8 pages

4.6 responsibilities cost and time line

5. The RF system (Li, Haseroth)

5.1 Cavities

5.2 Windows

5.3 Power supplies

5.4 achievable performance 8 pages

5.6 services and safety (->move to infrastructure chapter 10)

5.5 responsibilities, cost and time-line

6. The absorbers (Cummings/Ishimoto)

6.1 general design

6.2 windows

6.3 thermodynamics (heat exchanger, etc..)

6.4 safety issues(->move to infrastructure chapter 10)

6.5 responsibilities, cost and time-line 8 pages

draft Proposal for MICE proposal Layout (ctd)

7.Beam and beam line (Drumm)

7.1 layout and location

7.2 expected performance and time structure

7.3 time line 6 pages

8. Detectors (Bross/Palladino)

8.1 overall description, functionality and redundancy

8.2 TOF and trigger

8.3.1 tracking device (option I) Scintillating fiber tracker

8.3.2 tracking devices (option II) TPG

8.4 Particle ID

8.5 DAQ, on-line monitoring and reconstruction

in each section : responsibilities, costs and time line

15 pages

9. RF radiation on detectors (Norem/McKigney)

9.1 general understanding and characteristics

9.2 measurement results and effect on detectors

9.3 projected effect on performance of MICE (with help of simulation team)

9.4 further measurements to come

6 pages

draft Proposal for MICE proposal Layout (ctd)

10. implementation of MICE at RAL (Ivaniouchenkov, Black)

10.1 Hall layout

10.2 services, cryogenics etc…

10.3 safety issues

10.4 interference with ISIS

10.5 installation plan, time-line, costs and requirements 6 pages

11. Summary of responsibilities, costs, funding and grand time line (Zisman, Edgecock)

6 pages

12. Summary and requirements from RAL

3 pages


appendices (if needed)

92 pages…..

Conclusions & discussion

MICE has already shown to be a beneficial approach:

RF emissions

cost reductions

safety windows .. etc..

There will be undoubtedly many other annoying discoveries,

….. followed by clever inventions

MICE is essential to convince ourselves – and others –

that we know how to build realistic cooling channels

Getting a first measurement of cooling before LHC start-up

should be feasible but requires good organization and priorities.

Funding needs to be found also from outside MC.

RAL is inviting us… we must take our chance.

Steering committee:

Europe: A. Blondel*1 , H. Haseroth, R. Edgecock,

I. Ivaniouchenkov

Japan : Y. Kuno

US: S. Geer, D. Kaplan2, M. Zisman

*convener for coming year, 1 EU spokesperson, 2 US spokesperson

Yagmur Torun will be invited as Webmaster/ secretary.

Web site:


thanks to Yagmur Torun - [email protected]

a) concept development and simulations:

Alessandra Lombardi (CERN)([email protected]) (K. Hanke deputises)

Robert B Palmer (BNL) ([email protected])

Yagmur Torun <[email protected]>

b) Hydrogen absorbers:

Shigeru Ishimoto (KEK) ([email protected])

Mary-Anne Cummings (Northern Illinois)( [email protected] )

c) RF cavities and power supplies

Derun Li ( [email protected])

Roland Garoby (CERN) ([email protected]) ->(Helmut Haseroth + RAL person to be identified)

d) magnets

Mike Green (LBNL) [email protected]

Jean-Michel Rey (CEA Saclay)

e) particle detectors

Vittorio Palladino (INFN Napoli) [email protected]

Alan Bross (FNAL) [email protected]

f) beam lines

Paul Drumm (RAL) [email protected]

g) RF radiation

Jim Norem (Argonne)[email protected]

Ed McKigney (IC London) [email protected]

Participating institutes

(In parentheses: contact person in each institute)

Louvain La Neuve (G. Grégoire)

CERN** (H. Haseroth)

NESTOR Institute (L. Resvanis)

University of Athens (L. Resvanis)

Hellenic Open University (S. Tzamarias)

INFN Bari (G. Catanesi)

INFN LNF Frascati (M. Castellano, L. Palumbo)

INFN Legnaro (U. Gastaldi)

INFN Milano (M. Bonesini)

INFN Padova (M. Mezzetto)

INFN Napoli (G. Osteria)

INFN Roma I (L. Ludovici)

INFN Roma II (L. Catani)

INFN Roma III (L. Tortora)

INFN Trieste (M. Apollonio)

** pending the review of CERN activities in accelerator R&D which will take place in the framework of the LHC cost-to-completion analysis.

KEK (S. Ishimoto)

Osaka University (Y. Kuno)

ETH Zurich (A. Rubbia)

Paut Scherrer Institute (C. Petitjean)

University of Geneva (A. Blondel)

University of Zurich (A. Van der Schaaf)

Imperial College London (K. Long)

Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (R. Edgecock)

University of Birmingham (J. Wilson)

University of Oxford (G. Barr)

Participating institutes (ctd)

(In parentheses: contact person in each institute)

Argonne National Laboratory (J. Norem)

Brookhaven National Laboratory (R. Palmer)

Columbia University (A. Caldwell)

Fairfield University (D.Winn)

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (S. Geer)

Illinois Institute of Technology (D. Kaplan)

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (M. Zisman)

Michigan State University (M. Berz)

Northern Illinois University (M. A. Cummings)

Princeton University (K. McDonald)

University of California Los Angeles (D. Cline)

University of California, Riverside/Indiana University (G. Hanson)

University of Chicago – Enrico Fermi Institute (K.-J. Kim)

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (D. Errede)

University of Iowa (Y.Onel)

University of Mississippi (D. Summers)

  • Login