mice beamline commissioning linda r. coney nfmcc meeting 16 january 2010
TRANSCRIPT
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Outline
Overview of MICE beam line 2009 Run Goals Target
Operation Stability
Detector Commissioning , e, p, and beams
Beam optics optimization and measurements Upstream Quadrupoles Decay Solenoid Muon beam emittance measurements
Conclusions
2
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
MICE Beam Line
TOF2 attached to front of KL and installed end of November
3
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Goals for Running in 2009
Begin MICE Step I Commission new target Commission detectors
GVA1, CKOVa, CKOVb, TOF0, TOF1, FNAL Beam Profile Monitors, KL High intensity running for study of ISIS activation Commission Decay Solenoid Calibrate TOF system Calibrate CKOV and KL Perform Beam Studies:
Beam loss vs. Particle Rate Optimize Upstream Beamline (Q1, Q2, Q3) Decay Solenoid optimization
Optimize DAQ for increased particle rate Measure muon beam emittance
4
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Outline
Overview of MICE beam line 2009 Run Goals Target
Operation Stability
Detector Commissioning , e, p, and beams
Beam optics optimization and measurements Upstream Quadrupoles Decay Solenoid Muon beam emittance measurements
Conclusions
5
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Target Operations
50,000 pulses of redesigned target in test stand in R78 New target installed in ISIS August 2009
Run at base rate (50 Hz/32) and with ISIS at 50 Hz (Normal User Run)
Inspected after 12k, 22k, 42k, 63k – PASSED Target is working beautifully – NO problems Target stability checked every 5000 pulses
Process to monitor target behavior agreed upon with ISIS Target timing wrt ISIS MS signal monitored Coordinating Beam Loss measured by MICE with that
measured by ISIS Target Operation: 112,000 pulses to date
Machine Physics – 8 days of MICE running September User Run – 10 days Nov/Dec User Run – 12 days
6
MICE target path
ISIS cycles
MS marker
ISIS losses
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Target Monitoring
Target stability checked every 5000 pulses Study Beam Center Distance (BCD) to monitor target
stability Clear difference between BCD distribution for
functioning target and failing target Failing target has much broader spread T2 distribution 3-4 times as broad Interpreted as target “sticking”
Target BCD very stable7
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Target Data Taking
Target Operation Studies: Search for ideal timing with respect to ISIS cycle
Also a function of target depth ISIS Beam loss vs particle rate study
Increase target depth, producing ISIS beam loss of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 1, 2, 3 and 4 V
In 2008, maximum ISIS beam loss 50 mV Found edge of beam at injection need to
avoid next pulse on out-swing Studies of different accelerations: modified
drive voltages on capacitor bank ISIS machine study: beam bump at MICE
target
8
Normal BLMs around ISIS with MICE target inactive (Sector 7)
Target operating at 2V beamloss
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Target Operations
Beamloss (in Sector 7) for the 13 hour run at 1V Two distinct peaks (although only fitted a single
Gaussian) Double structure due to ISIS beam wandering in cyclic
pattern Not due to variation in target depth!
Survey of target area after long 1V run Slight activation (max. 500 Sieverts/hour) in
couple of spots near target No impact on measurements around the rest of
ISIS ISIS suggests repeat at 5V beamloss
9
Activation StudyActivation Study
Beam Loss VariationBeam Loss Variation
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
ISIS Beam Bump Study
BEAM BUMP TEST (last 2ms of cycle): D. Adams & M. Popovic 1ms-long kick generated to change nominal orbit New orbit kept stable for another 1ms All brought back to the nominal trajectory The test was performed as follows:
0- use nominal trajectory setting (ISIS) 1- set target BCD for 50 mV losses 2- align target dip minimum with the extraction edge 3- record dip depth and delay 4- extract target 5- introduce the bumped orbit 6- insert target until produce 50mV loss again 7- record dip depth and delay
Results depth of ~5mm reproduced the 50mV loss (predicted value was 7mm) ISIS beam closer to target reduces depth needed to generate a defined beamloss faster
insertion, better control of next pulse clipping Bumped orbit well controlled locally Rest of orbit very stable
10
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Beam Loss vs Particle Rate Study
Beamline set for 300 MeV/c - beam Losses calculated using fit to curve of BLM7SUM
peak Error bars (tiny) just from rms/sqrt(#counts)
Counts in GVA1
11A. Dobbs
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Beam Loss vs Particle Rate Study II
Beamline set for 300 MeV/c - beam Losses calculated using fit to curve of BLM7SUM
loss peak Error bars (tiny) just from rms/sqrt(#counts)
Counts in FNAL BPM1
12A. Dobbs
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Next: Beam Loss vs Particle Rate
Repeat analysis using integrated beam loss rather than fit to peak method ISIS determines MICE losses using integration over full cycle
Rate vs beam loss plots as function of particle type Uses TOF for PID and rate counter Cannot use BPMs for this as beam content may change between them Can use current data for this study
Repeat study with positive particles Repeat study with muon beamline Take more data points at higher beam loss
13
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Outline
Overview of MICE beam line 2009 Run Goals Target
Operation Stability
Detector Commissioning , e, p, and beams
Beam optics optimization and measurements Upstream Quadrupoles Decay Solenoid Muon beam emittance measurements
Conclusions14
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Time of Flight Counters
TOF0, TOF1 installed for September & Nov/Dec User Runs TOF2 installed in late November Horizontal and vertical bars Have proven to be invaluable in beamline commissioning
Tof-0
0.48 m
10 x 4cm scintillator barsx = 1.15 cmt = 50 ps
Tof-1
0.48 m
7 x 6cm scintillator barsx = 1.73 cmt = 50 ps 16
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Data Taking Program: Positive Particles
Detector Calibration: 300 MeV/c pions - 4000 target pulses (translates to about 330,000 particles
used for calibrating the TOF system) 250 MeV/c pions - 350 target pulses (also for TOF) 200 MeV/c pions - 450 pulses (also for TOF)
300 MeV/c positrons - 1500 target pulses (CKOV and KL calorimeter) 150 MeV/c positrons - 1200 target pulses (CKOV and KL calorimeter)
Beam Studies:
330 MeV/c pions to study Decay Solenoid effects on beam optics - 2000 pulses
Muon Beams: 444 MeV/c pi+ to mu+ beam - 500 pulses
17
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Data Taking Program:Negative Particles
In October – switched beamline polarity Detector Calibration:
300 MeV/c - 2800 target pulses (TOF system) 300 MeV/c electrons - 5750 target pulses (TOF, CKOV and KL calorimeter) 150 MeV/c electrons - 1200 target pulses (TOF, CKOV and KL calorimeter)
Beamline Studies: 300 MeV/c for particle rate vs beam loss study – 400 pulses 300 MeV/c for spill gate vs particle rate study – 500 pulses
330 MeV/c for particle rate vs beam loss study – 2400 pulses 50mV, 100mV, 200mV, 300mV, 400 mV, 500 mV losses
Optimization of Upstream Beamline - 330 MeV/c Q1,Q2,Q3 scans – 1100 pulses
Muon Beams – Emittance Measurements 444 MeV/c to 250 MeV/c beam - 1500 337 MeV/c to 250 MeV/c beam – 1550 444, 420, 400, 360, 337 MeV/c to 250 MeV/c beam – 500 pulses
22
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Data Taking Program with TOF2
End of November – TOF1 moved, TOF2 installed Detector Calibration with TOF1 trigger:
300 MeV/c : 6500 target pulses (calibrating TOF system & target delay study)
250 MeV/c : -500 target pulses (TOF system)
300 MeV/c electrons - 3000 target pulses (TOF,CKOV and KL)
Muon Beams - Emittance measurement data 444 MeV/c to 250 MeV/c beam - 9100 pulses 337 MeV/c to 250 MeV/c beam – 1000 pulses 444 MeV/c to 200 MeV/c beam – 1000 pulses 444 MeV/c to 300 MeV/c beam – 1000 pulses 400 MeV/c to 225 MeV/c beam – 2000 pulses 337 MeV/c to 200 MeV/c beam – 2600 pulses
23
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
TOF Calibration
Many TOF bars to calibrate Need lots of data! Last year’s data……..This year… TOF system with TOF2 in progress
2009300 MeV/c
increased statistics
2009 330 MeV/c
2008
(Peaks overlap)
e
24
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
TOF Calibration: Time Resolution
Different calibration done for September and Nov/Dec Runs Discrimination threshold changed and improved time resolution September: TOF0 – 52 ps, TOF1 – 68 ps Nov/Dec: TOF0 – 51 ps, TOF1 – 58 ps TOF1 completely calibrated, TOF0 all but slab0 and slab9 in both planes
25
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Cherenkovs
Two aerogel Cherenkov counters Installed downstream of Q6 and TOF0 Used to separate e// 220-350 MeV/c e// calibration data taken Sample electron data shown
26
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
e/ Identifier
KL lead/scintillating fiber calorimeter module Installed on temporary support with TOF1 in
September Moved downstream and mounted with TOF2 in
November Calibration in progress Electron data taken FADCs all working DAQ restructured & ok
Electron Muon Ranger (EMR) Triangular prismatic scintillator bars Being constructed at UGeneva Installation later this year
27
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Outline
Overview of MICE beam line 2009 Run Goals Target
Operation Stability
Detector Commissioning , e, p, and beams
Beam optics optimization and measurements Upstream Quadrupoles Decay Solenoid Muon beam emittance measurements
Conclusions28
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Optimization of Upstream Beamline: Q1,Q2,Q3 scan
Q1-2-3 varied from nominal value
Charged particles counted downstream of Decay Solenoid
Compared to MC Charged -, -, e-
Use MC to predict effect for single current changes
verify in the next run
14
nominal config.
data
MC
30
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
f1-only (MC) DATA
• Q1 scan• Good agreement
between data and MC for variation of only Q1
Optimization of Upstream Beamline: Q1,Q2,Q3 scan
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
31
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
f2-only (MC) DATA
• Q2 scan• Agreement
between data and MC not as good as that for Q1
Optimization of Upstream Beamline: Q1,Q2,Q3 scan
320.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
32
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Optimization of Upstream Beamline: Q1,Q2,Q3 scan
Q3 scan Data not agree
with MC Q3 could be
more sensitive to small misalignment
f3-only (MC) DATA
330.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
33
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Decay Solenoid Optimization
330 MeV/c pion beam DS nominal setting 550 A (3.1T) Vary +/- 10% and study profile in TOF0 Check data vs MC (our understanding of BL)
Run 1121 DS lower 0.30T Run 1123 Nominal DS
Run 1125 DS up 0.30T
TOF0
TOF1
34
Study still in progress
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Muon Beam Studies at MICE!
The MICE experiment takes 17000 target pulses of muon beam data!
~170,000 at TOF1 Muon beam studies begin!
Worldwide celebrations
ensue!
Locals in Britain express strong support for the experiment
BlimeBlimey!y!
MuonsMuons!!
35
Extra!
Extra
!
Extra! Extra!
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Muon Beam Data
Preliminary muon rate survey 337 MeV/c - to 250 MeV/c -
beam Varied target depth to study muon
rate as function of beam loss VERY preliminary!
Muon Beams - Emittance measurement data 444 MeV/c to 250 MeV/c beam - 10,600 pulses 337 MeV/c to 250 MeV/c beam – 2500 pulses 444 MeV/c to 200 MeV/c beam – 1000 pulses 444 MeV/c to 300 MeV/c beam – 1000 pulses 400 MeV/c to 225 MeV/c beam – 2000 pulses 337 MeV/c to 200 MeV/c beam – 2600 pulses
36
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Muon Beam Emittance Measurements
Purpose: generate the elements of the “emittance-momentum matrix” Study performance at every portion of a full cooling channel
Can we use the TOFs to demonstrate the matrix elements?
Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q5Q5 Q6Q6 Q7Q7 Q8Q8 Q9Q9DK solDK sol D2D2D1D1
TOF1TOF1TOF0TOF0TargetTarget
DiffuserDiffuser
Cooling channel Cooling channel and spectrometersand spectrometers
33 66 1010
140140
200200
240240
Initial Initial 4D 4D NN (mm) (mm)
Abso
rber
Abso
rber
PPzz (
MeV
/c)
(M
eV
/c)
DataData
MICE note 176 Apollonio, Cobb
M. Rayner
37
Q4Q1
Dip
ole1
DK solenoidQ2 Q3
Dip
ole2
Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
dnstream BL tuning: match to diffuser
P=444 MeV/c
fix D1 fix D2
Marco Apollonio - Imperial College 38
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Measuring (,P) from DATA
- Rationale- check if an optics produces the foreseen () at diffuser- measure (and P) of the muon beam- measure beam spread (sigx) and divergence (sigx’ = sig(px/pz))
- How?- use TOF0 / 1 as (x,y) stations- define muon sample- track mu’s in the Q7-8-9 triplet- infer x’, y’ (x,x’) (y,y’)- scatter plots give phase spaces
Mark Rayner’stools
39
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Muon Beam Measurement
Use PID on December’s scaled decay beam line data Define muon sample
“Central” beamline optics444 MeV/c 250 MeV/c at D2
6-200Runs 1380-1397 and 1391-1393
Intermediate momentum beam line with scaled quad currents
Runs 1407-1408444 MeV/c 225 MeV/c at D2
6-140(rescaled currents)Runs 1409-1411
337 MeV/c 200 MeV/c at D2
M. Rayner 40
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Reconstruction procedure
Iterative calculation of increasingly good s=z+ and P Begin with P from P/E=z/t
1 Calculate a linear transfer map at P from TOF0 to TOF1 (top hat quadrupoles) 2 Deduce x0’ and y0’ from x1 and y1
3 Integrate ds while tracking the initial trace space vector through the beam line 4 Make a better estimate of P from P/E=s/t 5 Make a small Bethe-Bloch correction for the energy loss in air between the TOFs
M. Rayner 41Marco’s=6mm pabsorber=200 MeV/c centre of the -p matrix beam
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Muon Beam Measurement:x and y trace space
Truth Recon’d det. sim. Data
M. Rayner42
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Goals for Running in 2009 Revisited
Begin MICE Step I Commission new target Commission detectors
GVA1, CKOVa, CKOVb, TOF0, TOF1, FNAL Beam Profile Monitors, KL High intensity running for study of ISIS activation Commission Decay Solenoid Perform Studies:
Decay Solenoid optimization - in progress Beam loss vs. Particle Rate - in progress Optimize Upstream Beamline (Q1, Q2, Q3)
Calibrate TOF system Calibrate CKOV and KL ongoing Optimize DAQ for increased particle rate ongoing Measure muon beam emittance – started – ongoing
43
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Conclusions
Beamline is working! – negative or positive particles New target operating smoothly - Systematic monitoring of performance Decay Solenoid routinely operated – factor 5 increase muon rate Major increase in loss limits 50 mV (2008) 1V (2009) DAQ increase in efficiency: <50 particles/spill (2008) ≤ 200 part/spill (2009) Beam loss vs particle rate shows linear dependence
Detectors are working! TOF0, TOF1 calibrated – TOF2 next Need more data for TOF2, KL EMR installation – Summer2010
Muon beam optics physics is happening! Upstream beamline is tuned Initial measurement of muon beam emittance Muon Rate Study – in progress More (,P) matrix data in February/March
44
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Target Operations
Beamloss (in Sector 7) for the 13 hour run at 1V Two distinct peaks (although only fitted a single
Gaussian) Double structure due to ISIS beam wandering in cyclic
pattern Not due to variation in target depth!
Survey of target area after long 1V run Slight activation (max. 500 Sieverts/hour) in
couple of spots near target ISIS suggests repeat at 5V beamloss
9
Activation StudyActivation Study
Beam Loss VariationBeam Loss Variation
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Target Operations II
Target I stability from 16 Sept 2009 Characteristic double peak due to inherent 0.15 mm position resolution and the pulse by
pulse capture position deltaD for 5th = .13 and for 16th = .12 Running at same depth – consistent behavior
6
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Decay Solenoid
Operation of Decay Solenoid is now routine Provides gain of ~5 in particle flux
Without DS With DS
34
Linda R. Coney – 16 Jan 2010
Decay Solenoid
Operation of Decay Solenoid is now routine Provides gain of ~5 in particle flux
Without DS With DS
35