results for au:Jenner_L in:physics
The next generation of lepton flavor violation experiments need high intensity and high quality muon beams. Production of such beams requires sending a short, high intensity proton pulse to the pion production target, capturing pions and collecting the resulting muons in the large acceptance transport system. The substantial increase of beam quality can be obtained by applying the RF phase rotation on the muon beam in the dedicated FFAG ring, which was proposed for the PRISM project.This allows to reduce the momentum spread of the beam and to purify from the unwanted components like pions or secondary protons. A PRISM Task Force is addressing the accelerator and detector issues that need to be solved in order to realize the PRISM experiment. The parameters of the required proton beam, the principles of the PRISM experiment and the baseline FFAG design are introduced. The spectrum of alternative designs for the PRISM FFAG ring are shown. Progress on ring main systems like injection and RF are presented. The current status of the study and its future directions are discussed.
The EUROnu project has studied three possible options for future, high intensity neutrino oscillation facilities in Europe. The first is a Super Beam, in which the neutrinos come from the decay of pions created by bombarding targets with a 4 MW proton beam from the CERN High Power Superconducting Proton Linac. The far detector for this facility is the 500 kt MEMPHYS water Cherenkov, located in the Fréjus tunnel. The second facility is the Neutrino Factory, in which the neutrinos come from the decay of \mu+ and \mu- beams in a storage ring. The far detector in this case is a 100 kt Magnetised Iron Neutrino Detector at a baseline of 2000 km. The third option is a Beta Beam, in which the neutrinos come from the decay of beta emitting isotopes, in particular 6He and 18Ne, also stored in a ring. The far detector is also the MEMPHYS detector in the Fréjus tunnel. EUROnu has undertaken conceptual designs of these facilities and studied the performance of the detectors. Based on this, it has determined the physics reach of each facility, in particular for the measurement of CP violation in the lepton sector, and estimated the cost of construction. These have demonstrated that the best facility to build is the Neutrino Factory. However, if a powerful proton driver is constructed for another purpose or if the MEMPHYS detector is built for astroparticle physics, the Super Beam also becomes very attractive.
The next generation of high-energy physics experiments requires high intensity protons in the multi-GeV energy range for efficient production of secondary beams. The Fermilab long-term future requires an 8 GeV proton source to feed the Main Injector for a 2 MW neutrino beam source in the immediate future and to provide 4 MW pulsed proton beam for a future neutrino factory or muon collider. We note that a 3GeV cw linac matched to a 3---8GeV FFAG ring could provide beam for both of these mission needs, as well as the cw 3GeV experiments, and would be a natural and affordable scenario. We present details of possible scenarios and outline future design and research directions.
MINOS is a long baseline neutrino oscillation experiment that uses two detectors separated by 734 km. The readout systems used for the two detectors are different and have to be independently calibrated. To verify and make a direct comparison of the calibrated response of the two readout systems, test beam data were acquired using a smaller calibration detector. This detector was simultaneously instrumented with both readout systems and exposed to the CERN PS T7 test beam. Differences in the calibrated response of the two systems are shown to arise from differences in response non-linearity, photomultiplier crosstalk, and threshold effects at the few percent level. These differences are reproduced by the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation to better than 1% and a scheme that corrects for these differences by calibrating the MC to match the data in each detector separately is presented. The overall difference in calorimetric response between the two readout systems is shown to be consistent with zero to a precision of 1.3% in data and 0.3% in MC with no significant energy dependence.