Upload
usoa
View
28
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
MICE collaboration meeting 11 at Berkeley -- Wrap-Up --. AIMS were: tracker validation process design and safety working group begin formation of DAQ Controls and Monitoring group continue to broaden simulation effort review ongoing activity. Very intense meeting with a lot to swallow. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
MICE collaboration meeting 11 at Berkeley-- Wrap-Up --
AIMS were:
• tracker validation process• design and safety working group • begin formation of DAQ Controls and Monitoring group• continue to broaden simulation effort• review ongoing activity
Very intense meeting with a lot to swallow. ommitted PID, RF R&D and status since you just heard themplease interupt if I forgot something.
2MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
Thanks to the outstanding work of all MICE with special congratulations to UK colleagues (and our godfather K.Peach!)
for getting experiment through gateways:
MICE is getting REAL!
First beam 1st April 2007
**** 365*2+46= 776 days to data taking !!!
3MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
- STEP I: spring 2007
STEP II: summer 2007?
STEP III: winter 2008?
STEP IV: spring 2008?
STEP V: fall 2008?
STEP VI:STEP VI: 20092009
what is our schedule now?
4MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
1. design and safety working groupensure 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)
convener is Wing Lau
if MICE members havea concern about safety they should *scream*and tell Wing Lau (cc: Paul Drumm) immediately.
SAFETY is EVERY MICE’s business
my impression: ALL production reviews pertinent to PHASE I will have to be passed ***before end 2005*** …!
5MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
Process
Detail Design & Safety…
Develop Concepts & Design, Prepare documentation
fit for purpose Documents ok
Acceptance
Pre-manufacture
Manufacture & Install
RehearsalSupport
Wing Design & Safety Group
Agree ProcedureWe are here!
Document Review
Review
FINALDocument
Audit
Operate
RAL Review
RAL
Agree when ready
Agree when ready
From Document... toPresentation by Video?
Task LeaderTask Members
Task LeaderTask MembersTask Leader
Task Members
Invitees?Review
Advice?
Audit & Advise
Audit & Advise
6MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
Task Matrix
# Package Sub-Task Review Stage
Concept
Ready for Final Design
…
1 beam & related infrastructure
Engineering;Radiation;Physics design
2 R&D Hydrogen (AFC module)
RF
3 Detectors Spectrometer solenoid & SciFi
ToF, Ckov
4 Phase 2 infrastructure
Expands 1
5 Phase 2 Cooling Channel
Linked to 2
6 Controls & Monitoring
(belongs to phase I !)
7MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
Design & Safety audit schedule:
items / deliverables
Beamline
Related infrastructures
R &D programmes including:
Hydrogen systems
RF
Detectors including
Spectrometer solenoid, the tracker Scifi
TOFs, Cherenkovs & EmCalorimeters
Time line….Oct 2005
….Oct 2005
….
….
….…. June 2005
…..…..
8MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
The ongoing process calls for a very systematic and unified description of all elements of MICE -- already at the design stage-- for the primary sake of production and operation needs, but also in view of RAL review process.
Interlock logics and consequences will require a first loop soon for the phase 1 of the experiment. so do DAQ Controls and Monitoring.
Important that each subsystem ask themselves if the framework is inclusive and covers properly design and safety issues for their system.System coordinators need to count backward the design and construction schedule and interact with the S&D WG leader to decide when their reviews should take place!
9MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
among many other items…
critical Phase I item is beam line shieldingwe dont want it to be oversized/expensivehow much is really necessary?
who is responsible for the RF-tracker shield? (tracker or AFC?) (a phase 2 item)
differences between step 2 and 3 for the disposition of the downstream differences between step 2 and 3 for the disposition of the downstream (or upstream detectors) and shielding needs design(or upstream detectors) and shielding needs design
interface between shielding plate and tracker (and diffuser!) still needs design work.
MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005 10
TRD: Paul’s guilt
it is still not finished
pride
it will keep evolving and MICE documentation will grow around it!
TRD
11MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
TRACKER
1. MICE note is available!
2. KEK Beam test testing is part of 1) team building and 2) making sure that the detector that will be delivered really works.
aims of the test: without Mag. field1. basic performance test2. light yield (VLPC vs PMT?) overall efficiency (with defocused beam)3. position resolution (alignment error) 4. multiple scattering then with mag-field:Magnetic field increases light yield (!?)Check momentum measurement and pattern recognition of curved tracks. momentum measurement by TOF ar from beam input?
‘Prototype is very near to the final thing’
12MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
Also: time-of-flight and Cherenkov counters are being built in Japan. and ! Data acquisition etc…
consistency with/of final DAQ system of MICE? Prototype?
big motivation and impressive turnout of Japanese colleagues!
THIS WILL KEEP A LOT OF MICE BUSY IN THE NEXT MONTHS!
some remaining tracker design issues: -- work out where the magnetic monitors go-- …….
13MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
3.Tracker Performance
superb job of simulations by Malcolm Chris et all software groupexample of G4 MICE used for actual ‘analysis’
Pt and Pz resolution vs B (3T OK, gets worse quickly at lower field)Pt and Pz resolution at equil. emittance
Neat method to unfold the resolution by means of full variance matrix approach (generalization of variance additions)
Conclusion: the benchmark ‘resolution < 10% of rms distribution’ is passed,or nearly passed, for all variables, using measured performance and realistic background. TRACKER CHOICE IS VALIDATED
Conclusion II the TOF needs urgently to be designed, prototyped and tested.Conclusion II the TOF needs urgently to be designed, prototyped and tested.
next tasks:-- how do we calibrate the resolution in situ? -- are biases well enough understood?-- inclusion of other detectors (TOF, CKOV, ECAL) in analysis and for design of Cherenkov and ECAL
14MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
DAQ controls and monitoring
• clearly needs definition of terms (spill vs trigger vs bunch crossing etc..)• define the size of data one is talking about(lists were drawn already)• define the data acquisition frequency needed. • which data will be used for analysis, which for monitoring, ‘talking to my device’ which is part of the safety loop!
•other issues:
•DAQ group to be formed!
15MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
Data Rate
A tracker has 5 stations 5x640=3200ch 4 VLPC cassettes = 32 MCMs = 4096 ch Assume:
Beam structure : 1k muons / 1msec (in every 1sec?) Reading all channels 4kBytes / event
4MBytes / spill (8MBytes/spill for full tracker upstream and downstream)
Makoto Yoshida
Need to collect similar information for each piece of MICE producing informationand compare to tracker information size.
NOT ZERO SUPPRESSED
16MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
An idea of the DAQ architecture
Bit3
SA
Se
q#
1
SA
Se
q#
2
SA
Se
q#
3
SA
Se
q#
4
SE
RD
ES
#1
SE
RD
ES
#2
SE
RD
ES
#3
SE
RD
ES
#4
SE
RD
ES
#5
SE
RD
ES
#6
SE
RD
ES
#7
SE
RD
ES
#8
VL
PC
#1
L
VL
PC
#1
R
VL
PC
#2
L
VL
PC
#2
R
VL
PC
#3
L
VL
PC
#3
R
VL
PC
#4
L
VL
PC
#4
R
TrackerCollectorUpstream
TrackerCollectorDownstream
TrackerBuilder
PIDBuilder
BeamBuilder
MICEBuilder
MICEStorage
MICEControl
Bit3
SA
Se
q#
1
SA
Se
q#
2
SA
Se
q#
3
SA
Se
q#
4
SE
RD
ES
#1
SE
RD
ES
#2
SE
RD
ES
#3
SE
RD
ES
#4
SE
RD
ES
#5
SE
RD
ES
#6
SE
RD
ES
#7
SE
RD
ES
#8
TrackerControl
Bit3
15
53
15
53
TrackerSlow Ctrl
VL
PC
#1
L
VL
PC
#1
R
VL
PC
#2
L
VL
PC
#2
R
VL
PC
#3
L
VL
PC
#3
R
VL
PC
#4
L
VL
PC
#4
R
Upstream Tracker Downstream Tracker4096ch
4kBytes/event
8MBytes/spill
4kBytes/event
4MBytes/spill
CryosatControl
17MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
To be determined
How to talk between MICE control system and Tracker controller Protocol
TCP/IP (Network Shared Memory) or ?
Items to be communicated Run mode (beam, calibration, test) Commands for initialization, setup,
and start data taking How to send tracker data to the
MICE event builder Protocol Data structure
Spill header (spill#, date, time, detector ID, temperature data, threshold setting, etc.)
Event header (detector ID, event#, time, data length, etc.)
Data (ADC, TDC, etc.)
DAQ sequence
Initialize Generate processes and send process
ID back to controller Collectors Initialize electronics
Setup Set run number Set run mode Set threshold, etc.
Start Start data taking
Stop Stop data taking Loop back to Setup
Abort Kill processes
18MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
Target and beam line
prototype is ready first measurements of the oscillatory pattern will see more (what is the spec in regularity?)
Concerns: regularity of motion: what reproducibility is needed? how many protons are needed?
radiation levels (FLUKA calculations!) to target and mechanism --will not be tested – should they?
failure modes?
Apparatus to measure the particle rates is foreseen…DAQ device and system?
Muon beam line include material 23 MeV/c lost in various material along the beam line!
Now we need 266 MeV/c (will require going up in pion momentum for purity) to get 200 MeV/c in center of first LH2 absorber
19MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
position of the diffuser lead plate and associated mechanicsposition of the diffuser lead plate and associated mechanics
Clearly this is an issue that needs to be solved better specification: changing diffuser should require less than 30 minutes
clearly came out from the discussion in tracker parallel session that thepresent design is not appropriate. (2 days operation)
diffuser lead plate:1. what are the thicknesses we want?2. how often does it need to be changed?3. where is is possible to place it to get desired effect suggested 5 or 6 nominal emitances impact on precision on scraping and equilibrium emittance determination
20MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
equilibrium emittance = 2.5 mm.radian
curves for 23 MV, 3 full absorbers, particles on crest
How many points do we need on this curve?
guex: 1.5 X0=? 2.5 X0=? 4 6 10 mm.rad
21MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
Optics discussion1. all solutions that are more or less orthodox have been matched. (Bravo Ulisse!)2. still need to understand mismatch for off-momentum muons. 3.3. The spectrometers should be at a distance of 800mm for stage IIIThe spectrometers should be at a distance of 800mm for stage III4. how many leads for the focus pairs?
MRI MAGNETSMRI MAGNETS
OPTICS: many matches were tried for GE-MRI magnets but some left to be tried: MRI AFC MRI with distance and MRI field as free parameters.(it is likely that, even if this works, it will have more limited functionality)
M.Green: 1 matching coil pair is ~400K$ and two are ~600K$
Ken LongGE MRI magnet solution leads to a number of issues. (design of the outputs and flanges of the tracker for instance) It seems that we should stick to our baseline design unless absolutely forced. no positive decision until we really exhausted the solutions for getting the magnets we really want. what is the maximal emittance that fits in the tracker for B=3T?
22MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
Naive (personal) remark
one spectrometer solenoid is 1M$ and two are 1.6 M£. Will we waste (0.4M$ or more) by buying two solenoids from two different firms?
If this blessing happens I think we must be creative and make better use of it!
23MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
SoftwareFantastic job by software team!‘Students are taking over the project. Training more. Can use more people’ MICE notes coming out of the gang (two as we spoke… was this engineered?)
Completed basic documentation and crushed 12 bugsNew tests for PID detectors Rewriten the calorimeter from scratch in two weeksImplemented analysis tools – and validated the tracker! keep chasing bugs and inconsistencies (ECALC9 and Chris’s code, G4MICE vs ICOOL, etc..)
‘Simple things should be easy and complicated things should be possible’
Open questions:Open questions:How do we deal with misalignments? we will need to evaluate the effect of errors and define tolerances how do we define an event?Definition of T=0 ? material near the beam-stay-clear-- is it accurate? link with engineering team?phase of electric field , gate etc…. need to be solved by DAQ groupneed for physics-oriented discussions (working group?)Users are eventually expected to be able to write analysis code. physics tools particle ID, tracking, emittance calculation
24MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
MICE STEPS AND PHASES
1. Steps and stages are identical -- as defined in the subsequent figure.steps have a precise geometrical definition in principle. As there may be small variations within each stage, decimal points have been used.
STEP II.V
STEP II.VI
Question: in step 2 there is no agreed orientation of the Spectrometer solenoid! (working groups are invited to express their opinion – tracker, PID, engineering)
25MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
STEP V
STEP V.0
Should get 5-10 MV RF acceleration (limited by dark current) Shorter, less expensive, no coupling coil, (very limited optics flexibility) does this work in flip, RFoFo, non flip modes? These are mostly optics questions
26MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
- STEP I: spring 2007
STEP II: summer 2007
STEP III: winter 2008
STEP IV: spring 2008
STEP V: fall 2008
STEP VI: 2009
Phases are funding defined
PHASE I
PHASE II
27MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
InfrastructureDetails such as doors etc. being worked out by RAL team!There will be a request to keep chimneys etc to reasonable (minimum) size.
Shielding we want to reduce the steel shielding (or borrow the steel?) (O(200k£)calculate more precisely worst case scenarios for radiation
Access Paul gave a summary of the access procedure. Some MICE detectors are in zones that will be only seldom accessible. ex. TOF0. consequences?
designmagnificient 3-D drawings and stripping mode! (Bravo Stephanie!)
Tools to cross check with G4MICE seem to exist. would love to see this exercized. (Yagmur, Stephanie) http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/design/MICE/mice_page.htm
28MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
worse case forces have been calculated (Bravo Yuri!)new ideas for supports that are precise and strong enough to stand the forces (Shim block)
step 4 is an issue for forces and support.
29MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
AFC Module (emphasis on safety).
considering already the various sensors (e.g.temperature)Exact number and disposition need to be discussed and decided
When do we decide to vent or take H2 back to Hydride bed?
what is a safety sensor what is a monitoring sensor what is a measurement device to be used in analysis?
RF module safety.
Safety included in the concepts. Beginning of the process.
first step is to identify the hazards.
cavity sparking maybe the most scary. Resulting heat load (few W?)Monitoring necessary. N2 or non-O2 gas necessary in the coupler RF turns off very quickly. Vacuum gauges.
30MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
Suggested policy for presentation of MICE results (posters, presentations and articles) at conferences and workshops
Information given outside of MICE in talks, posters or articles should have been endorsed by the collaboration. Therefore, by default, the material should be based on well established facts shown at a previous collaboration meeting. Proposals for MICE changes should remain internal.
Material which is new but considered of interest for a conference or workshop or other meeting should be shown at a video conference more than two weeks before, so as to allow a second iteration if needed, and announced as requesting blessing from the collaboration
The blessing will be granted by the Executive Board after such presentation and following discussion.
This policy will be revised with experience and in any case before MICE data taking.
31MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
Next important Video Conferences:
9 March is the next one
Results and talks for PAC05 16-20 May 2005‘at least two weeks before a dedicated video conference should be organized’27 April 2005(special) + backup on 4 May (regular). Presentation on 27 April mandatory.
Results and talks for NUFACT05 21-26 June 2005Most should be similar to PAC05at least two weeks before 1 june with backup on 15 JunePresentation on 1 June mandatory
Next MICE collaboration meetingat Frascati 26-29 June
Palladino (local) and Kaplan +Bonesini? (agenda) will organize
32MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
CONCLUSIONS
1. progress since last collaboration meeting has been phenomenal
2.MICE is getting REAL!
First beam 1st April 2007
**** 365*2+46= 776 days to data taking !!!
we have a lot to do, soon!
33MICE collaboration meeting Alain Blondel 9-13 – 02 -- 2005
MERCI!
Mike Zisman and Tom Gallant for excellent organizationbuses, sweets, coffee and pizzas
All MICE members for attendance great presentations, hard and intelligent work
Paul Drumm and technical team for fantastic organization&foresightthat will get us to goal safely
Special congratulations to UK colleagues Ken Long et al (and our godfather K.Peach!)for getting experiment through gateways