Minutes of the Steering Group Meeting on March 6, 2003

Present: A. Blondel, P. Drumm, R. Edgecock, H. Haseroth, I. Ivaniouchenkov, D. Kaplan, Y. Kuno, K. Long, V. Palladino, Y. Torun, M. Zisman

Safety proposal
Drumm presented a modified proposal for generating a practical and safe integration solution for the absorber/focus coil assembly incorporating earlier suggestions. It contains mechanisms for decision making within MICE and review by RAL. The procedure looks like this: The proposal was approved by everyone. An initial phone meeting before the next collaboration meeting was suggested as well as a parallel session during the collaboration meeting at CERN. Zisman will contact the working group members to arrange the details. There was some concern about the timescale over which the group can come up with the final solution; although the June collaboration meeting would be desirable, the October meeting at RAL seems more realistic given the amount of work necessary and available resources. There's no template for operability hazard assessment at RAL, they are looking into getting an example from CERN
RAL proposal review committee response
The review panel will meet again in May, therefore we need the first set of answers by the second week of April and should discuss the answers and plans at the next collaboration meeting. People were assigned responsibility for coming up with a written answer to each question, getting information from others and making sure relevant studies are carried out as needed. Some of these questions can be answered right away or with some work while others require us to state plans on how to arrive at answers. The following is a summary of questions with names assigned and initial comments:
Detector issues
Fiber tracker (K. Long)
  • full simulation with 5 planes including inefficiencies and dead channels
  • same simulation with multiplexed readout
  • alignment (with straight-through muon tracks or laser system)
  • documentation on MuScat performance
E. McKigney is working on the simulation and Edgecock will provide MuScat information. In the response, we may also want to mention the D0 fiber tracker which is closer to what's proposed for MICE
TPG tracker (V. Palladino)
  • test of full drift length prototype with GEMs, hexaboard pads, readout strips and full electronics chain
  • effect of field uniformity (drift distortion) on tracking performance
  • effect of rf noise and x-ray flux on GEMs
U. Gastaldi can provide prototype test information and F. Sauli is investigating noise and background issues
Tracker timescale (G. Gregoire, D. Summers)
  • short term tests to be carried out and selection criteria for making a choice
  • detailed timescales leading to production, assembly and installation after the choice is made
The detector system conveners (A. Bross, V. Palladino) are satisfied with the proposed decision making process. G. Gregoire and D. Summers will collect answers from the proponents (they are supposed to do this as part of the tracker choice committee work anyway). The realistic tracker timescale is determined by funding (for building the tracking detectors themselves as well the coupling coil)
Safety factor (Y. Torun)
Acceptable spectrometer performance loss without compromising the measurement (the scope of this question needs to be clarified since it's stated in very general terms)
Particle ID (V. Palladino)
  • uniformity of response over detector area
  • muon phase space bias caused by PID veto
G. Gregoire and L. Tortora can supply details on the TOF and calorimeter systems. Torun will help get simulation answers from the people that implemented the TOF (S. Kahn) and EMCal (V. Grichine) in our monte carlo
General experimental issues (A. Blondel)
  • explain how correlation between the input and output emittance measurement improves the statistical precision of the difference measurement
  • justify the claim that systematics on the emittance ratio can be kept to below 0.1%
  • estimate required statistics to cover all cases if no weighting is used in analysis
  • detailed experimental program including different configurations and changeover times
  • justify having two rf sections instead of one
Help expected on emittance correlation from P. Janot, phase space weights and need for second cooling cell from R. Palmer, experimental program from Edgecock, cost of extra cell from Zisman
Software (Y. Torun, M. G. Catanesi)
What's being done to set up the appropriate team?
RF systems (M. Zisman)
R&D issues
  • e-beam weld vs braze joints
  • cavity cleaning and and bake-out
  • window lifetimes
  • copper vs copperclad steel
  • effect of window microphonics on cavity tuning
  • conditioning in magnetic field, effect of TiN coating
  • effects at field reversal point (needs to be clarified, cavities don't see any magnetic field reversal)
Timescale and funding
clarify contribution from MuCool R&D, comment on status of funding and possibility of input from an expert advisory panel (note that MUTAC already serves this purpose)
LH2 absorbers (M. Zisman and the new safety working group)
  • plans for assembly and integrated test of absorbers and focus coils
  • related infrastructure and safety needs
  • options to explore other absorber materials as part of the experimental program
Beamline (P. Drumm)
  • effect of reduced effort during the next long ISIS shutdown (which might be dictated by lack of funds) on the experimental timeline in terms of resource allocation and funding profile
  • timescale for decision on use of PSI solenoid
Funding (A. Blondel and the collaboration board)
  • steps leading to full engineering estimates for costs
  • availibility and role of MuCool funds
  • modified funding profile that makes minimum use of the next long shutdown
Timescales (K. Long)
  • effect of minimal effort during the next shutdown on the timeline
  • detailed milestones with dates corresponding to the experimental program including
    • beamline completion
    • tracker decision
    • absorber R&D, construction and system test
    • rf R&D and cavity production
    • magnet production matched to the above
Management (R. Edgecock)
  • RAL and UK: Strong leadership and team required at RAL including a senior project leader and technical contacts and coordinators for rf, magnets, absorbers, etc. as well as a UK physicist as liaison (this is mostly answered since the UK management structure they mention is already in place and was included in Edgecock's presentation to the committee)
  • Funding: will there be a financial committee and common operating funds? (K. Peach wants to set up a financial board like those in LEP experiments, we should invite him to the next collaboration board meeting where this will be discussed)
  • Management plan: RAL should start working on one
Help expected from the steering committee on funding, Zisman on operating costs and K. Peach on management plan. Current funding status: Blondel has some Swiss money for building TPG prototype. UK 2003-04 request (to cover beamline work at RAL, among other things) was not funded, resources not available at this time due to other commitments. US only has funds for MuCool R&D (and not enough to build all the coils and cavities) but none yet for MICE (to pay for the coupling coil and rf cavities), NSF proposal still in review.
Next steering group meeting
Thursday, March 20 at 14:30 GMT
Agenda for next video conference
Suggestions were Kaplan will finalize the details
Other items that came up during discussion

Yagmur Torun - torun@iit.edu
March 11, 2003