The MICE collaboration

1

• Answers to the International Peer Review Panel
• and their recommendations
• Can be found at
• http//proj-bdl-nice.web.cern.ch/proj-bdl-nice/coo
  l/proposal/answers-iprc/answers_ral.pdf
• 2. were assmbled thanks to contributions from
  many, in particular
• K.Long and Sci-Fi team
• U. Gastaldi and TPG team
• F. Sauli
• G. Gregoire
• Y. Torun and software team
• P. Janot/A.B.
• B. Palmer
• R. Edgecock
• P. Drumm
• M. Zisman and RF team
• M. Zisman and the AFCSTF

2
1 Experimental detector issues 1.1 Sci-Fi
tracker. good news simulation of multiplexed
tracker shows resolution degraded only by a
factor of about 2. (shows that MS in tracker is
large efect for non-mpxd system) remains to
include RF-induced noise nice strategy for
alignment 1.2 TPG tracker 1.2.1 It is important
to test a full drift length using the triple GEM
technique gave schedule of test for TPG this
summer and milestone of Tracino 1.2.2 Is the
uniformity of "better than 1", assumed for the
1000 mm by 300 mm diameter solenoid good enough
for the imaging performance of the TPG? Here is
a difficulty main problem is not just the
B-field but the parallelism of B and E B will be
measured but not E! ? need a calibration/alignment
strategy   A complete calibration system for a
TPG for MICE has not been fully designed, and a
definite answer to this question is not possible
at this point. This issue will clearly be
addressed in the internal review leading to a
choice for the tracker. We will discuss this
further on Friday morning.
3
1.2.3 Has an estimate been made of the effect of
RF noise and x-rays on the GEMs?
Sauli made a calculation of the probability for a
photon to create a photo-electron on the GEM
itself which then leads to a cascade and noise.
Seems about equal to probability in Helium. Must
be verified by test with x-rays. (preferably at
Lab G, possibly with calibrated sources)
4
1.3 Timescales for the tracker described the
procedure for choice, the names of internal
referrees (Grégoire and Summers) and the goals to
be achieved.
1.4 Safety factor What is the loss
performance in the spectrometers which will
compromise the measurement? How large is the
safety factor? recalled the requirement in the
LOI (1/10 of the beam size at equilibrium
emittance) beam size in transverse momentum is
about 10 MeV at equilibrium emittance we have
110 keV Pt resolution with sci-fi 270keV
multiplexed. 35 keV for TPG Safety factor is
large, but systematic errors (alignment!) have
not been taken into account.
5
  1.5 Particle ID concerns are the homogeneity of
response over the required surface area, and how
this can be proved, and the risk of bias (in
terms of phase space population) through loss of
muons by unwanted rejection in the particle ID
systems (e.g. position, incident angle, and
energy dependence of "over-vetoing" of electrons
in the calorimeter or Cherenkov). problem
surfaced! In fact the full downstream PID was
designed for 200 MeV muons (not 200 MeV/c!) as a
consequence the design should be revisited see
Grichines talk tomorrow. Apart from this
unpleasant discovery, which was not mentioned,
the redundancy of the system should allow mapping
of efficiency over the phase space. Examples were
given.
6
2. General experimental questions   2.1 Is there
a plausible general argument to support the claim
that the correlation of the measurement of the
emittance of the incoming and outgoing muons
improves the statistical precision of the
difference measurement? Gave ref. to Janot, who
had observed the effect empirically. Plausibility
argument transverse momentum gained in
absorbers (5 MeV/c) is smaller than intrinsic
transverse momentum of the beam (10 MeV/c at eq.
emittance, or more) NB this is very true at
large emittance, maybe less so in the low
emittance regime.
7
2.2 There is a statement, "it is believed that
the systematic errors on the ratio of the output
to input emittance can be kept at the level of
10-3 or better", is this merely a pious hope, or
is there evidence to justify it?

• This was not too difficult. We need to control
  energy loss, Multiple scattering
• and energy gains with required precision.
• just two spectrometers -gt measure ratio of
  emittance to ltlt 10-3
• empty MICE and no RF should provide the same
• fill absorbers, no RF ? measure dE/dx and MS in
  LH2
• RF ON measure energy gain as a function of RF
  phase
• RF ON vs RF OFF measure effect of x-rays on
  trackers
• in addition
• measure magnetic functions (magnetic
  measurements)
• ? measure RF volts (electric loop?)
• ? measure effective mass of LH2 in the way of
  muons (not so trivial)
• measurement of the absorber thickness before
  installation, but with a filling of hydrogen,
• measurement of the hydrogen pressure,
• measurement of the hydrogen temperature.

8
If funding is adequate, the following sequence of
events can be envisaged
m
-
STEP I 2004
STEP II summer 2005
STEP III winter 2006
STEP IV spring 2006
STEP V fall 2006
STEP VI 2007
9
2.3 The re-weighing of the particle density is
used as an argument to allow the experiment to
make many studies with one data taking setting.
However this comes at a price in terms of
statistics. What would be the real statistics
needed to reach the required effective statistics
for the worst case? example 1
reweighting to achieve this curve would require
factor 50 loss in particles. (run 50hrs instead
of one)
10
Another case was emphasized by Bob
what is the loss in statistics that corresponds
to reqeighting a flat beam to a beam with such
amplitude-momentum correlation?
answer is being calculated.
11
Further optical difficulty emphasized by
Bob beam is more comlicated than this
PSI solenoid
dipole
TOF 0
TOF 1
Muons
beam is in fact quite divergent after solenoid.
inefficient much more counts in TOF0 than
in TOF1 Not matched to detector
solenoid does not produce momentum/angle
correlation of neutrino factory does not produce
energy spread of neutrino factory. ? needs
modifications, a focusing element somewhere.
Solutions? see Bobs talk!
pions
12
2.4 Is it possible to provide a plan of the
envisaged experimental program, indicating which
configurations will be explored, and what kind of
changeover times are anticipated? This question
has a bearing on the different magnetic forces
which will be experienced. It also impacts the
question of how essential the decay solenoid is
for the beam line.

• Rob delineated a rather complete description of
  the programme.
• Solenoid is really more than welcome.
• issue The useful fraction was estimated to be 4
  at the time of the proposal,
• assuming an input pencil muon beam. More recent
  simulations using
• the real muon beam parameters have estimated this
  fraction to be smaller,
• approximately 0.1.
• However, these simulations are continuing and are
  indicating that the addition of
• optical elements (quadrupoles or coils) along the
  beamline or in the 10m
• between the two diffusers could improve this
  number by a large factor, 50 or more.
• We are also investigating the real limits on the
  target thickness
• in the running conditions of MICE.
• As this work is not yet complete, the value of
  0.1 is used for the programme below
• and this should be considered the minimum that
  MICE can achieve

13

• 2.5 This question concerns the MICE proponents
  with input from expert committee members.
  Because of costs, etc., might it not be necessary
  to quantify the gains which may follow from
  exploring set-up VI, beyond set-up V, in figure
  3.13. Is this step a luxury or prudent insurance
  against a situation where cooling is less then
  expected?
•  
• Answer
• this is one full cell of the cooling channel.
• this configuration allows many different
  configurations to be tested
• better use of the RF power vs cooling
  performance, at a reduced RF voltage ? reduced
  x-ray background.
• the incremental cost is 2.03 M .
• this is less than the incremental cost of a
  full-fledged tracker
• Although the configuration of step V would be
  better than nothing, we believe that the full
  MICE configuration proposed is a much better
  choice.

14
2.6 Successful software simulation of the MICE
results appears to be an important ingredient for
extending the measurement to future cooling
configurations. What steps are being taken within
the MICE collaboration to set-up the appropriate
software team? gave names of coordinators,
activities of software team and achievements so
far.
However I think we are far from producing enough
in software
15

• 3. RF systems
• This is perhaps the most challenging accelerator
  system in MICE, and the proposed 201 MHz cavity
  structure includes several new and novel aspects,
  which will need intense R and D effort before
  moving to construction. The introduction of
  cavity windows and the operation in a magnetic
  field are untried innovations. Several questions
  arise-
• e-beam welds or braze joints
• best method to clean and bake cavities
• lifetimes of windows
• (. Ultimately, tests of the prototype 201 MHz
  cavity will be needed to fully assess this
  matter. These tests are foreseen when the
  prototype cavity is available, about 18 months
  from now.)
• use of copper or copperclad steel
• microphonic issues will be an important aspect
  of cavity timing-the cavity frequency bandwidth
  corresponds to a 30 µm window displacement
• cavity conditioning and multipactoring in the
  magnetic field-is there a gain from TiN coating
• effects at field reversal point
•  
• Is it possible to indicate a timescale and
  funding required to cover this R and D? Can it
  happen within the MUCOOL R D program of MUTAC
  at FNAL? Have the proponents considered a small
  advisory group of recognized RF experts?

16
(No Transcript)
17
  4. Liquid hydrogen absorbers   4.1
The R and D on this system is widely dispersed.
What are the plans for assembling and testing the
completed system, liquid hydrogen container,
vacuum, and focusing coils? Where will it occur?
Who supplies the infrastructure and safety needs?
While liquid hydrogen is the baseline absorber in
MICE, to what extent can other absorbers be
explored?
Answer anticipated by creation of AFCSWG
(M.Zisman et al) and YES other absorbers will be
explored!
see AFCSWG reports
18
(No Transcript)
19

• 5. Beam line The committee heard that the
  proposed work plan for the ISIS division in the
  long shutdown projected to commence in Spring
  2004, already stretches resources to the limit.
  This would appear to make the installation of the
  new MICE beamline practically impossible without
  increased effort.
• The committee would like to hear whether
  simply enlarging the hole in the shielding wall
  in the next long shutdown is a possible way
  forward for MICE. When would the beamline be
  subsequently completed? Would this step preclude
  the use of the PSI solenoid? What delay might be
  envisaged for the MICE program? How would this
  step impact the required funding and resource
  profile for MICE? The committee understands that
  this is not the preferred schedule of MICE, but
  it may prove to be a realistic one. What is the
  timescale for a decision on the possible use of
  the PSI solenoid?
• The delay to MICE is likely to be 6 months to
  one year.
• Summary
• PSI solenoid decision in early 2004, likely to be
  at RAL in first half of 2005.
• Full beam line ready second quarter of 2006 this
  depends on the timing of the next long shutdown
  which is likely to be driven by MICE and the
  neutron community.
• Resource profile will always be peaked during a
  shutdown requires MICE to be the dominant
  activity in the shutdown/shutdown length to
  accommodate MICE

20
6 Funding The committee realizes that the cost
estimates as presented are "physicists'"
estimates. This is always a necessary first
step. However these estimates must be firmed up
with adequate documentation, before funding
agencies will give serious attention to a funding
request. What steps are envisaged to move
forward? Is there a clear view of what amounts
are expected from the various agencies involved?
Some funds seem to be assumed from MUCOOL RD,
will this continue? What funds, if any, does
MICE have already, a piece of MUTAC? It would
seem sensible to consider two funding scenarios.
One profile which is front loaded to make maximum
use of the 2004 shutdown-the preferred profile. A
second which makes minimum use of the 2004
shutdown. 6 ANSWER What steps are envisaged to
move forward? The cost estimates presented in
the proposal have been evaluated by the
proponents of each subsystem for which they are
considered responsible and correspond to the
amount that they need to request in order to
fulfil their commitment. see table 6 for
detailed breakdown (sums up to proposal)
21

• Problems in the funding
• 0. funding request from UK under scrutiny (see
  Ken Longs presentation)
• some funding proposals have not been submitted
  yet (Italy Switzerland)
• 2. there are difficulties doing so.
• RF power surce is still in flux. We need to have
  a well-defined proposal
• and then request the funds accordingly.
• NOBODY SO FAR HAS SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR THE RF
  SOURCES

see Roy Churches discussion on Saturday.
What is this?
22
7. Timescales The committee understands
that the preferred MICE timescale as outlined in
figure 3.13 is driven by the feeling that a
result is needed by 2007. If minimal use is made
of the 2004 shutdown how would the dates be
modified?   The committee would like to
see some milestones which would allow the steps
of figure 3.13 to be realized as presented in the
proposal, or possibly a modified set of steps
from figure 3.13. The most obvious milestones
are,   date of beamline completion for step
I. date of decision on trackers for steps II
and III. length of time remaining for R and D
on the liquid hydrogen absorbers in order to go
into production, achieve a sub-system test, and
be ready for step IV. length of time
remaining for RF R and D to produce cavities in
time for steps V and VI. start dates for coil
production focusing, coupling, matching,
spectrometer, to mesh into the above steps.
23
 
Table 71 Revised milestones that result from a
preliminary analysis of the consequences of
performing a minimum of work in the next ISIS
long shutdown that is scheduled for spring 2004.
24
8. Management issues The Rutherford
Laboratory is proposing to host MICE. This role
will bring significant international visibility
to RAL, but it will also demand considerable
responsibilities if the project is to proceed
successfully. The following observations are
made. There is a need for an overall, fairly
senior, Project Leader. The RAL team should
contain sufficient expertise in sub-systems (RF,
magnets, absorbers, etc.) to play a leading role
in helping to define them, so that there are no
surprises in the "in kind" equipment which
arrives at the laboratory for installation. In
addition the laboratory will need to supply
appropriate engineering coordination to provide
the beamline, the infrastructure for the
installation of subsystems and spectrometers,
plus define, implement and manage safety systems.
There will also be a need for an experienced UK
physicist to assist in the liaison with the
physics groups providing the detector
components.   The funding for MICE will
include international contributions. It would
seem prudent to envisage some form of "agency
committee" which monitors the funding during the
provision of the MICE equipment. There has been
no mention of MICE operating funds-a common fund?
RAL?   The committee feels that it is
not too early for the laboratory to begin to
formulate and present a management plan for
hosting MICE at RAL.
25
(No Transcript)
26
The funding for MICE will include international
contributions. It would seem prudent to envisage
some form of agency committee which monitors
the funding during the provision of the MICE
equipment. There has been no mention of MICE
operating fundsa common fund? RAL? As stated
above, it is planned to create the agency
committee either by expanding the membership of
the Joint Project Board or by creating an
equivalent body. Initial contacts with the
relevant funding agencies in Europe, the US and
Japan are in the process of being made. It is
planned to have a common fund to cover elements
of the installation of MICE, running and
dismantling. Initial ideas for this were
presented to the MICE collaboration meeting at
the end of March and a first proposal will be
made by mid-May. This fund will managed through
RAL.
27
the response from IPRP has been very positive
strongly recommends approval of the project ()
()   The choice of future facilities which can
be proposed for exploitation by the world
community of high energy physicists is determined
by the research and development in accelerator
physics carried out in the worlds HEP
laboratories. As a prime example, there could not
be the possibility of an ee- Linear Collider
without the work of DESY, KEK and
SLAC.   Implementation of MICE at RAL will
strengthen the laboratory as a member of the
high-energy physics global accelerator network.
UK physicists, working with their international
collaborators, will be able to provide a unique
result in accelerator physics which is required
if muons are ever to be considered as candidate
accelerated particles, and the UK will become an
attractive venue for some of the worlds leading
accelerator physicists.
28
management issues.
The IPRP made a number of additional
recommendations to the RAL management and to
the MICE collaboration
Independent Cost and Schedule Review Project
Management Methodology Technical Liaison A
Technical Advisory Committee An Agency
Committee
see the report from the IPRP for more details.
we had a breakfast discussion on Friday 6 June
with K. Peach to establish where MICE should take
initiative, where not. main MICE
responsibilities ? submit remaining
proposals to funding agencies asap. ? begin to
reflect on management methodology ? establish
charter, and common fund proposal should we be
more proactive
29
Project Management Methodology
          The RAL management, working
together with the MICE collaboration, needs to
develop a full work breakdown structure (WBS) or
its equivalent. Such a document should enumerate
all the required tasks, down at least to level 4,
cost estimate each task as well as its basis, and
establish a resource loaded schedule. Such a
document is indispensable to assure that the
costs and schedule are complete and reasonable,
that no essential tasks have been left out and
that the responsibility for each part of the
project is clearly defined. It will also
facilitate identification of important
integration issues.
30

• Conclusions
• MICE are scientifically approved but there is a
  lot to do!
• approval probability has never been so high, yet
  it is not 100!
• action items
• Beam line/matching design.
• Do you know of a pair of coils that could
  be used?
• 2. RF power source design
• 3. Re-design downstream PID to larger momentum
  bite
• 4. Tracker choice (october 2003 firm!) hardware
  and software
• 5. find funding (some still needs to be proposed
  and defined!)
• 6. safety review, refine the project etc
• This is an exciting time, but not a time to relax
  or disperse!