Timothy Carlisle, Oxford CM 28. Step 3 Matching Step 3  Step 3 rematched for 830 mm spool piece  Calc. B(z) & BetaFn with the following:  Minimize.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

CM31: Multiple Scattering in GEANT4 Timothy Carlisle University of Oxford.

Advertisements

Emittance definition and MICE staging U. Bravar Univ. of Oxford 1 Apr Topics: a) Figure of merit for MICE b) Performance of MICE stages.

FIGURE OF MERIT FOR MUON IONIZATION COOLING Ulisse Bravar University of Oxford 28 July 2004.

1 Angular Momentum from diffuser Beam picks up kinetic angular momentum (L kin ) when it sits in a field –Canonical angular momentum (L can ) is conserved.

“Amplitude Cooling” in Step III & IV Timothy Carlisle.

Tracker Reconstruction Stuff Timothy Carlisle Oxford.

Cooling channel issues U. Bravar Univ. of Oxford 31-Mar-2004.

MICE analysis meeting - (01/06/2006) 1 few words on emittance growth in step III M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.

1 PID, emittance and cooling measurement Rikard Sandström University of Geneva MICE Analysis phone conference.

1 26 Nov 2010 SOLID ABSORBERS Solid absorbers will provide first cooling demonstration –This is important for a number of reasons! Can use only solids.

1 September 09Mark Rayner – Emittance measurement by The TOFs1 Emittance measurement by the TOFs Via trace space reconstruction of individual muons. Complementary.

MICE analysis meeting - (4/5/2006) 1 some reflections on scraping, PID sizes and Transmittance M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.

Alain Blondel MICE: Constraints on the solenoids 2.Field Homogeneity: or ? this will be dictated by the detector requirements. TPG will be.

OPTICS UPDATE Ulisse Bravar University of Oxford 3 August 2004.

1 Downstream scraping and detector sizes Rikard Sandström University of Geneva MICE collaboration meeting CERN.

18 June 2004AFC meeting1 MICE  functions and so on Work in progress…. Observation by Ulisse Bravar at CERN meeting that beam not matched in baseline (Proposal.

10 October 2006 MICE CM-16 at RAL 1 Distributed versus Lumped Coupling Magnets Michael A. Green and Soren Prestemon Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley.

M.apollonioCM17 -CERN- (22/2 - 25/2 2007)1 Single Particle Amplitude M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.

1 Muon Yield Comparisons for Different ICOOL Versions and Lattices X. Ding Front End, Nov. 23, 2010.

MICE analysis meeting - (6/4/2006) 1 Update on MICE – step III M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.

MICE analysis meeting - (21/09/2006) 1 Transmittance, scraping and maximum radii for MICE STEPVI M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.

Chris Rogers, MICE CM16 Wednesday Plenary Progress in Cooling Channel Simulation.

MICE analysis meeting - (26/3/2006) 1 Update on MICE – step III M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.

Beam line characterization with the TOFs1 Demonstrating the emittance-momentum matrix Mark Rayner, CM26 California, 24 March Initial.

1 OPTICS OF STAGE III Ulisse Bravar University of Oxford 6 October 2004.

M.apollonioAM STEPIII – sizes and positioning m.apollonio, Oxford.

MICE CM - Fermilab, Chicago - (11/06/2006) 1 A (short) history of MICE – step III M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.

Beamline-to-MICE Matching Ulisse Bravar University of Oxford 2 August 2004 MICE performance with ideal Gaussian beam JUNE04 beam from ISIS beamline (Kevin.

1. Optical matching in MICE Ulisse Bravar University of Oxford 2 June 2004 Constraints Software MICE proposal mismatch MICE Note 49 (September 2004, Bob.

24 Nov 2009PC Analysis PC Schedule 2009 Tuesdays fortnightly Proposed dates: 13 October  27 October  CM25 4 – 6 November  24 November 8 December.

30 June 2004MICE VC1 MICE  functions Since last VC report: –New Mike Green configurations for decreased spacing between focus and matching coils of 400mm,

Beam Parameter Study - preliminary findings Tim Carlisle.

MICE analysis meeting - (18/5/2006) 1 STEPIII: ICOOL vs G4MICE M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.

M.apollonioam M. Apollonio University of Oxford update on STEP III.

Mark Rayner, Analysis workshop 4 September ‘08: Use of TOFs for Beam measurement & RF phasing, slide 1 Use of TOFs for Beam measurement & RF phasing Analysis.

04/01/2006MICE Analysis Meeting1 MICE phase III M. Apollonio, J. Cobb (Univ. of Oxford)

18 August 09Mark Rayner – Momentum measurement by The TOFs1 Momentum measurement by the TOFs A correction to an O(4 MeV/c) bias on the current muon momentum.

Chris Rogers, Analysis Parallel, MICE CM17 Progress in Cooling Channel Simulation.

M.apollonio/j.cobbMICE UK meeting- RAL - (9/1/2007) 1 Single Particle Amplitude M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.

Stats update Was asked to provide comparison between toy mc and g4mice at two points along z (middle of first and third absorbers) 10,000 events, step.

Diffuser Studies Chris Rogers, IC/RAL MICE VC 09 March 2005.

Analysis of MICE Chris Rogers 1 Imperial College/RAL Thursday 28 October, With thanks to John Cobb.

Particle Production in the MICE Beam Line Particle Accelerator Conference, May 2009, Vancouver, Canada Particle Production in the MICE Beam Line Jean-Sebastien.

MICE magnetic measurements: AFC considerations Alain Blondel see a previous discussion for reference in CM35 (Feb 2013 slides by V. Blackmore, A. Blondel.

Multiple Scattering (MSC) in Geant4 Timothy Carlisle Oxford.

MICE input beam weighting Dr Chris Rogers Analysis PC 05/09/2007.

S. Kahn 5 June 2003NuFact03 Tetra Cooling RingPage 1 Tetra Cooling Ring Steve Kahn For V. Balbekov, R. Fernow, S. Kahn, R. Raja, Z. Usubov.

11 Nov 2008PC Analysis PC Schedule 2008 Tuesdays fortnightly 9 September  23 September  2 October  CM22  11 November  25 November 9 December.

Marco apollonio/J.CobbMICE coll. meeting 16- RAL - (10/10/2006) 1 Transmittance, scraping and maximum radii for MICE STEPVI M. Apollonio – University of.

1 Statistics David Forrest University of Glasgow May 5 th 2009.

PID PC 7th Sept MICE MAGNETIC FIELDS & SHIELDS J. H. Cobb & H. Witte Oxford University Magnet fields for MICE (VI) calculated including magnetic.

Timing measurements at the MICE experiment – 1 The analysis of timing measurements at the Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment Mark Rayner The University.

Step IV Studies Timothy Carlisle Oxford. Intro. CM28 – Step III vs Step IV Cooling formula & G4MICE disagree on – Also observed in ICOOL (note #199 –

Re-tuning MICE June 1 st 2010 Tim Carlisle. Intro At the moment MICE coil currents optimized for: central Pz = 0 RF No LH2 want to rematch M1 & M2 in.

17 Sept 2007 Analysis PC 18 Sept Analysis PC Schedule 2007 Tuesdays alternate weeks, 15:30 – 17:00 GMT, with ad hoc exceptions Tue 3 April Tue 17.

Measuring Multiple Scattering in Step IV Timothy Carlisle Oxford See MICE Note 374 for updated results.

1 OPTICS OF MICE STEP V.0 Ulisse Bravar University of New Hampshire 26 June 2005.

26 Aug 2008PC Shield walls – extend the length of channel – will ‘pull’ field x y Coil Centred coil + 2 walls  X – Y asymmetry Off-centre coil +

MICE Step IV Lattice Design Based on Genetic Algorithm Optimizations Ao Liu on behalf of the MICE collaboration Fermilab Ao Liu on behalf of the MICE collaboration.

(one of the) Request from MPB

MICE S TEP IV P HYSICS ‘D ELIVERABLES ’ V. Blackmore MAP 2014 Spring Meeting 30 th May, /15 AKA “What will we learn from Step IV?”

CM Nov 2009 DOES MICE NEED STEP III ? Somewhat hard to understand MICE Schedule… –If the gods are (un)kind it’s possible that SS1, SS2 & FC1 are.

Marco apollonioAnalysis Meeting (9/12/2006)1 transmission vs amplitude with a finite size diffuser M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.

Step IV Physics Paper Readiness

Beam Energy-Loss measurement

MICE Step IV Lattice Design Based on Genetic Algorithm Optimizations

C. Rogers, ASTeC Intense Beams Group Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Field-on measurement of multiple scattering

Completing the Step IV Programme

Impact of Magnet Performance on the Physics Program of MICE

Presentation transcript:

Timothy Carlisle, Oxford CM 28

Step 3

Matching Step 3  Step 3 rematched for 830 mm spool piece  Calc. B(z) & BetaFn with the following:  Minimize F at 1 point in a const. field region in 2 nd Tracker z [m] Many solutions Beta Fn. [cm]

Step 3 Empty: 6mm  beam M1 = M2 = 92.4 SigPz = 1 MeV/c, 100k muons Beta Fn. [cm] Bz [T] on Axis Emittance [mm] Av. Pz [MeV/c z [m] z [m] z [m] z [m]

Amplitude Cooling... Step 3 empty Step 4 empty Amp OUT Amp IN Amp OUT Amp IN 6mm beam, SigPz = 1 MeV/c, 100k muons

Amplitude Cooling... Step 3: LiH Step 4: LH2 6mm beam, SigPz = 1 MeV/c, 100k muons Amp OUT Amp IN Amp OUT Amp IN

Theoretical Cooling Performance Input beam emittance [mm] d/d/

8 cooling heating G4MICE : 100k mu, SigPz =1 MeV/c

cooling heating Input beam emittance [mm] d/d/

 Focus Coil switched off  No LH2  Minimized Fn at z= -0.3 m ~ centre of 2 nd Tracker  Range of solutions: z [m] z [m] Step IV but without FC Bz [T] on Axis Beta Fn. [cm]

Step 3: EmptyStep 4: EmptyStep 4: No FC currents Transmission 1000 mu 1% 400 mu 0.4% 400 mu 0.4% within Tracker Transmitted Quality cut: Amp < 16*Av.  Raw Beam z [m] z [m] z [m] mm beam, SigPz = 1 MeV/c, 100k muons

Conclusions Clearly more difficult to measure cooling in Step 3 ~10 x more heating than Step 4 Step 3 cooling disagrees with theory  0 < theory – don’t know why (same in ICOOL) Need to include Tracker reconstruction... It appears we can run Step 4 without FC currents Is this useful – Trackers? Can we run Step 4 with no currents in M1,M2 & FC? Alignments?

Extras...

Step 3 – comparison with existing data.. Empty Channel LiH absorber 14 cooling heating Black Data: 100k mu, SigPz =1 MeV/c, G4MICE Marco Data: 10k mu, SigPz = big (10%), ICOOL – note Input emittance [mm] Input emittance [mm] 5% 2% 0 6% 3% 0 -2% -4%

Step3 Empty: 1mm  beam SigPz = 1 MeV/c, 100k muons B(z) on Axis M1 = M2 = 92.4 Emittance [mm] Beta Fn. [cm] Bz [T] on Axis Av. Pz [MeV/c z [m] z [m] z [m] z [m]

Step 3 LiH: 6mm  beam M1 = M2 = 92.4 SigPz = 1 MeV/c, 100k muons Beta Fn. [cm] Bz [T] on Axis Emittance [mm] Av. Pz [MeV/c z [m] z [m] z [m] z [m]

Step 4 Empty: 6mm  beam SigPz = 1 MeV/c, 100k muons Beta Fn. [cm] Bz [T] on Axis Emittance [mm] Av. Pz [MeV/c z [m] z [m] z [m] z [m] Beta Fn. [cm]

Step 4 LH2: 6mm  beam SigPz = 1 MeV/c, 70k muons Bz [T] on Axis Av. Pz [MeV/c z [m] z [m] z [m] z [m] Beta Fn. [cm] Emittance [mm]

Output AmpSq Step 3 Empty Step 4 Empty Step 3 LiH Step 4 LH2