Possible MANX Beam Lines and Experimental Sites

1
Possible MANX Beam Linesand Experimental Sites

• Bob Abrams

2
Motivations

• Can we do MANX as a fast-track experiment at
  FNAL? If so,
• Use an existing beam and transport elements
• Use existing detectors and readout system (as
  much as possible), and DAQ
• Keep costs down
• Try to be able to start experiment in the same
  time frame as the completion of the HCC and
  associated hardware

3
Investigated Several Potential Sites

• MuCool Test Area off Linac (MTA)
• Booster MiniBoone beam line
• Meson Lab several locations
• KTeV area - several configurations
• New site based on Mu2e location(?)

4
Potential FNAL Sites for MANX
Meson Lab
KTeV Hall
MTA
MiniBoone site
Possible Mu2e sites
5
Meson and KTeV Sites
Meson Lab
KTeV Hall
6
Comparison of Sites (High Level)
7
Potential Sites

• KTeV Hall
• Upstream Location
• Downstream Location
• Potential Competition/Compatibility with other
  users
• Meson Lab
• MCenter

8
MTA (From A. Jansson Presentation)

• Muon test area (MTA) is dedicated to muon work
• Proton beamline under construction,
• Scheme exists to significantly increase
  intensity.
• Cryo and infrastrucure available

(Proton beamline shown with possible location of
muon beamline components)
MTA
Mass slit
Separator
Momentum collimator
Decay channel
Target
Linac
Booster
8/9/2007
AAC August '07
A. Jansson 8
9
250MeV/c muon beamline at MTA(A. Jansson)
Pion/proton dump
Shield Wall
Electrostatic separator
Muon yield in 200-300MeV/c range 1e-6 per
proton Lose about factor 1000 scraping to pencil
beam 1e4 muon muon beamlet per 1e13 linac
proton pulse feasible
Decay channel
Momentum collimator
Transverse collimator
Matching into HCC solenoid
PAC07 paper
8/9/2007
AAC August '07
A. Jansson 9
10
MTA Pros and Cons
Cons
Pros

• Proton beamline exists
• Linac beam availability
• High intensity beam
• Cryo and RF avail
• Only option for beamlets

• Beam energy (400 MeV) too low for 300-400 MeV/c
  muons
• Exptl area too small for beam transport and
  apparatus
• Potential conflict with MuCool testing

11
MiniBoone Beam Pros and Cons

• High beam intensities
• Availability of Booster beam
• Running along with neutrino expts possible

• Need to excavate to install low energy muon
  transport elements
• Need to build new enclosure for apparatus
• Does not evolve well toward Mu2e site
• Short beam spill and lack of control of beam

12
KTeV Possibilities

• Upstream of main detector hall
• Using part of existing vacuum pipe as decay
  region (Alternate running with E-906)
• Use upstream target
• In Main detector hall (without E906)
• Use larger part of existing vacuum pipe
• Use large part of detector hall
• In Main detector hall (with E906)
• Use beam dump mode instead of decay pipe
• Use space downstream of E906 layout
• Run with E906 Magnet 1 off

13
Conceptual View of MANX in KTeV Hall Shown
upstream of E906 Mode alternate with E906
KTeV Upstream Beam Line
Replace with small beam tube
Pi Decay Region
KTeV Experimental Area
Degrader
HCC
MANX Target
39 m
MANX Bend 3 Downstream Spectrometer
MANX Bend 1
MANX Bend 2 Upstream Spectrometer
10 m
E906 Location
Location of Virtual detector For G4BL run
14
Conceptual View of MANX in KTeV HallShown in
Downstream LocationMANX exclusive (No E906)
KTeV Upstream Beam Line
Beam Dump
Pi Decay Region
KTeV Experimental Area
Degrader
HCC
MANX Bend 1
MANX Target (new)
10 m
MANX Bend 3 Downstream Spectrometer
MANX Bend 2 Upstream Spectrometer
15
Layout of Components
5
15
m
20
0
10
1
2
3
4
Magnet 1 (1m)3 0.4T w/Degrader 0.2T w/o Degrader
KTeV Vacuum Pipe
Virtual Detector 2
Magnet 2 2.5m from beam -0.2T
300 MeV/c
HCC
600 MeV/c w/Degrader 300 MeV/c w/o Degrader
Degrader (Al) (2m)2x0.7m
Virtual Detector 3
Virtual Detector 4
16
KTeV Element G4BL Layout
Detector 7 (After HCC)
Detector 6
Magnet 2 Degrader
Detector 5
Detector 4
Magnet 1
Vacuum Decay Pipes
Target
17
KTeV Rates per 500K protons on16.5 cm Fe Target
(Typically 1E-4 per Proton)
18
E906 Layout (From Proposal)
19
Latest E906 Layout (C. Brown)
Potential MANX area (Beam dump mode) 45ft x 40ft
25 ft
Concrete Wall
Detectors
KTeV Hall
KTeV Magnet
Detectors
Primary Magnet, Beam stop and muon filter
Target (120 GeV proton beam)
20
Setup for Simulation Runs
Cylindrical Cu Absorbers 8 - 1m radius x 0.49 m
thick Cu sections 3.3 Lint per section
3.3 6.6 9.9 13.2 16.5 19.8 23.1
26.4 total Lint
Muons, etc
8 or 120 GeV/c Protons
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D9
D6
D7
D8
Circular Virtual Detectors D1D9 1m radius
KEmin in Geant4 100 MeV and 50 MeV Physics
Models in Geant4 QGSP_BIC and LHEP_BERT
21
Particle Production for 120 GeV, QGSP_BIC Model

• Sample of 100,000 incident protons used
• For Labs gt 17 Lint muons are the main charged
  particles present.
• For Labs gt 20 Lint muons outnumber neutrons
  (with KE gt 100 MeV)
• For Labs gt 20 Lint muon rate is 1 per 103
  beam protons

22
Overall Rate from MI beams

• Assume
• 1E12 protons per pulse
• 1E-5 muons per proton (assume factor of 10 less
  than G4BL results to account for tighter cuts)
• This gives 1E7 protons per (1 sec) pulse (more
  than adequate rate)
• Lower intensity proton beam may be used (MCenter
  typically runs at 2E11)

23
KTeV Pros and Cons

• Large, well equipped area
• Certified for high p intensities 4E12p/pulse
• Currently not in use

• No cryo facilities
• E906 may run there
• Mucool may install there
• Cost of converting the line to 120 Gev/c
• Cost of removing old equipment
• Possible sharing of beam

24
Meson Lab Sites

• MTest area
• MCenter beam, in MIPP enclosure
• MCenter beam, in Meson detector bldg, with new
  target station in MCenter beam

25
Conceptual Layout of MANX in MIPP (MCenter Beam)
Enclosure
MIPP Specrometer
Space currently occupied By Beam Cerenkov
Detectors
Meson Detector Building (MC6)
MIPP Enclosure (MC7)
300 MeV/c
11 ft
150 MeV/c
1 GeV/c
14 ft
(Or Solenoid)
124 ft
Scale 24 ft
Detectors
M Matching Section Solenoid HCC Helical Cooling
Channel Solenoid ABS Absorber/degrader
Elements approx sizes only
26
MCenter (MIPP) Pros and Cons

• Beamline exists
• Sufficient space for MANX in MC7 enclosure

• Requires removal of MIPP Cerenkovs conflict
  with MIPP phase 2 (if approved)
• Fluxes of low momentum particles low
• No crane coverage

27
S. Kahn Original P904 Configuration with
Meson-Center Beam
Replace E904 Experiment Arrangement with MANX
MC7 Enclosure
MIPP Target
MCenter MIPP Beamline
D2 beam line from BNL
28
Schematic MANX Layout in MCenter Beam Line
Meson Detector Bldg
MT Beam Line
MT
MTEST User Area
Shielding
Old MW Tunnel
Old MW
27 ft
Decay channel
37 ft
Shielding
MCENTER Beam Line
MC
Shielding
New Target (at some place)
133 ft
Scale 20 ft
29
E904 Meson Site Pros and Cons

• Good large angle production of 300-400 MeV/c
  muons
• Beam elements from BNL exist (avail?)
• Good space in Meson for apparatus and beam (30ft
  x 130 ft )

• Requires new target station in MCenter
  potential radiation issues, space conflicts with
  MIPP beam elements
• Not compatible with concurrent MIPP operation
  (removal of MIPP target)

30
Conclusions and Additional Work to Do

• Meson and KTeV Locations most promising
• Dependences on MIPP and E906 are significant
• Ultimately the site may be determined by cost and
  political factors
• Need more work to incorporate HCC and
  spectrometer elements in simulations
• Need to try improvements such as decay solenoids,
  quadrupole decay channels, etc
• Need to investigate Mu2e potential site for MANX
  if used for stopping Muon beam enhancement
• Need to optimize settings