MOLLER Spectrometer Update

MOLLER Spectrometer Update

Juliette M. Mammei

Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013

2

OUTLINE• The Physics– Search for physics beyond the Standard Model– Interference of Z boson with single photon in Møller scattering– Measure the weak charge of the electron and sin2θW – Sensitivity comparable to the two high energy collider

measurements

• The Experiment– High rate, small backgrounds – 150 GHz, 8% backgrounds – Novel toroid design, with multiple current returns– Full azimuthal acceptance, scattering angles from 5.5-19

mrads, 2.5-8.5 GeV– 150cm (5 kW) target, detectors 28m downstream

Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013 3

APV = 35.6 ± 0.73 ppb

THE PHYSICS

𝛿 sin2𝜃𝑊

sin2𝜃𝑊≃ .05

𝛿 𝐴𝑃𝑉

𝐴𝑃𝑉

e- e-

e- e-

𝑄𝑊𝑒 𝐺𝐹

𝓛𝒆𝟏𝒆𝟐

𝑷𝑽 =𝓛𝑺𝑴𝑷𝑽 +𝓛𝑵𝑬𝑾

𝑷𝑽

∝𝑚𝑒𝐸 𝑙𝑎𝑏 (1−4 𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝜃𝑊 )

≈1×10− 8𝐴𝑃𝑉=𝜎+¿−𝜎−

𝜎+¿+𝜎−≈ ¿

¿2

Erler, Kurylov, Ramsey-Musolf

MEASUREMENT OF sin2θW


MOLLER

Z-pole

𝑚𝑡=172 .7±2 .9𝐺𝑒𝑉

MOLLER

Erler

∆ 𝛼h𝑎𝑑(5 ) =0 .02758±0 .00035


5

THE EXPERIMENTDetector Array

Roman Pots

(for tracking detectors)

Scattering Chamber

Target

Hybrid Torus

Upstream Torus

Incoming Beam28 m Collimators

e-


Forward

Backward

Forward Backward

COM Frame

e-

e-

e-

e-

Lab Frame

e-

e-

e-

Any odd number of coils will work

100% Azimuthal Acceptance


7(Rate weighted 1x1cm2 bins)

Tracks in GEANT4

Mollers

eps


8


9

I. Large phase space of possible changesA. Field (strength, coil position and profile)B. Collimator location, orientation, sizeC. Choice of Primary collimatorD. Detector location, orientation, size

II. Large phase space of relevant propertiesA. Moller rate and asymmetryB. Elastic ep rate and asymmetryC. Inelastic rate and asymmetryD. Transverse asymmetryE. Neutral/other background rates/asymmetriesF. Ability to measure backgrounds (the uncertainty is what’s important)

1. Separation between Moller and ep peaks2. Profile of inelastics in the various regions3. Degree of cancellation of transverse (F/B rate, detector symmetry)4. Time to measure asymmetry of backgrounds (not just rate)

G. Beam Properties (location of primary collimator)

Large Phase Space for Design


10

Conductor layout

Spectrometer Design

Optics tweaks

Optimize collimators

Ideal current distribution

Add’l input from us

Engineering design

• Fill azimuth at low radius, far downstream

• Half azimuth at upstream end• No interferences• Minimum bends 5x OD of wire• Minimum 5x ms radius• Double-pancake design• Clearance for insulation, supports

• Return to proposal optics or better• Optimize Moller peak• Minimize ep backgrounds• Symmetric front/back scattered mollers

(transverse cancellation)• Different W distributions in different

sectors (inelastics, w/ simulation)

• Force calculations • Symmetric coils• asymmetric placement of coils• Sensitivity studies• Materials• Coils in vacuum or not

• Water-cooling connections• Support structure• Electrical connections• Power supplies

• Optimize Moller peak• Eliminate 1-bounce photons• Minimize ep backgrounds• Symmetric front/back scattered

mollers (transverse cancellation)• Different W distributions in different

sectors (inelastics, w/ simulation)


11

Spectrometer Meetings

• Director’s Review – January 2010• Advisory Group Meeting – August 2010• Collaboration Meeting – December 2010• Supergroup Meeting – June 2012• Collaboration Meeting – September 2012

• Collaboration Meeting – June 2013• Advisory Group Meeting – October 2013


12

Suggestions of Advisory Group

• larger conductor and hole (→1550 A/cm2)• wanted a better representation of the fields, space

constraints, etc., wanted Br, Bphi• larger vacuum chamber instead of petals• Wish list:

– Get rid of negative bend– Use iron to reduce current density

No showstoppers!


13

Work since original proposal• First Engineering Review

o Verified the proposal map in TOSCAo Created an actual conductor layout with acceptable optics

• Since the engineering reviewo New conductor layout, take into account keep-out zoneso Water cooling more feasibleo Preliminary look at the magnetic forces

• Interfacing with engineerso JLab engineers estimate that pressure head is not an issueo New conductor layout with larger water cooling hole o Coil carrier and support structure designo Working toward a “cost-able” design for DOE review soon

Purchase of a new machine and TOSCA license for use at University of Manitoba


14

Proposal Model to TOSCA modelHome built code using a Biot-Savart calculation

Optimized the amount of current in various segments (final design had 4 current returns)

Integrated along lines of current, without taking into account finite conductor size

“Coils-only” Biot-Savart calculation

Verified proposal model

Created a first version with actual coil layout

Created second version with larger water cooling hole and nicer profile; obeyed keep-out zones


15

Concept 2 – Post-review4C 4R4L

1AR1AL

1BL 1BR

2L

3L

2R

3R

Current density not an issue, but affects cooling

Larger conductoro Larger water-cooling hole o Fewer connectionso Less chance of developing a plug

New layouto Use single power supplyo Keep-out zones/toleranceso Need to think about supportso Study magnetic forces

Continued simulation efforto Consider sensitivitieso Re-design collimationo Power of incident radiation


16

Layout

1AR1AL

1BL 1BR

2L

3L

2R

3R4C 4R4L

1AR1AL

1BL 1BR

2L

3L

2R

3R

1AR1AL

1BL 1BR

2L 2R

1AR1AL

1BL 1BR


17

Upstream Torus

zcoll = 590cm

ztarg,up = -75cmztarg,center = 0cmztarg,down = 75cm

θlow = 5.5mradθhigh = 17mrad

Rinner = 3.658cmRouter = 11.306cm

From center: From downstream:

θlow,cen = 6.200mrads θlow,down = 7.102mradsθhigh,cen = 19.161mrads θhigh,down = 21.950mrads

Finite Target Effects

Rinner

Router

ztarg,downztarg,up ztarg,center

θlow,up

θlow,down

θhigh,up

θhigh,down

Assume 5.5 mrads at upstream end of target, instead of center


19

Looking downstream

x

y

φ=-360°/14

φ=+36

0°/1

4

B

r

φIn this septant:

By ~ Bφ

Bx ~ Br

By

Bx ByBx


20

up (z0 =-75 cm) 5.5 to 15 mrads middle (z0 =0 cm) 6.0 to 17 mrads down (z0 =75 cm) 6.5 to 19 mrads

All phi valuesTracks colored by theta from purple to red (low to high)

Tracks in TOSCA

Not using the mesh - “coils only” calculation fast enough on my machine

- Actual layout much slower – use blocky version or improve mesh


21

BMODz=1375 cm

Field representations


22

Radial plot, middle of open sector

BMOD

Z=1375, φ = 0


23

Radial plot, edge of open sector

BMOD


24

Around Azimuth

Cent

er o

f op

en se

ctor

Z=1375, r = 13.5 cm

BMOD


25


phi=0 onlyTracks colored by theta from purple to red (low to high)


26


phi=0 only, near magnetTracks colored by theta from purple to red (low to high)


27


phi = 0 , Mollers only

3.0

Tracks colored by theta from purple to red (low to high)


28


phi=0 only, near magnet, mollers only

3.0


up (z0 =-75 cm) 5.5 and 15 mrads middle (z0 =0 cm) 6.0 and 17 mrads down (z0 =75 cm) 6.5 and 19 mrads

phi=0 onlygreen – epsblue - mollers


30

up (z0 =-75 cm) 5.5 and 15 mrads middle (z0 =0 cm) 6.0 and 17 mrads down (z0 =75 cm) 6.5 and 19 mrads

phi=0 only, near magnet

3.0

green – epsblue - mollers


31

Tweaking the Optics

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90

5

10

15

20

25Width of radial focus

"Good" angles"All" angles

Version

Wid

th (c

m)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90

5

10

15

20

25Separation of ends

"Good" angles"All" angles

Version

Sepa

ratio

n (c

m)

0 (1.0) 8 (2.11)


32

2.8 (blue)ee 3.0 (red) 2.0 (green)

Tracks from middle of target (z=0), phi =0 only 6.0 and 17 mrads

ep


33

2.8 (blue)ee 3.0 (red) 2.0 (green)

ep

Tracks from center of target, phi =0 only 6.0 and 17 mrads


34

3.0 (default)

2.8


ep

ee

ep

ee



35

GEANT4• Moved to GDML geometry description• Defined hybrid and upstream toroids

• Parameterized in same way as the TOSCA models


36

GEANT4 - Collimators


37

GEANT4 – Acceptance definition


38

Collimator Optimization


39

Comparison of GEANT4 Simulations

Proposal


41

Comparison of GEANT4 Simulations

TOSCA version


4242

2.6


43

Current Version of the Hybrid and Upstream

43

Default svn


44

Magnetic Forces

• Use TOSCA to calculate magnetic forces on coils

• Have calculated the centering force on coil:~3000lbs (compare to Qweak: 28000 lbs)

• Need to look at effects of asymmetric placement of coils

• Could affect the manufacturing tolerances


45

Sensitivity Studies• Need to consider the effects of

asymmetric coils, misalignments etc. on acceptance

• This could affect our manufacturing tolerances and support structure

• Have created field maps for a single coil misplaced by five steps in:– -1° < pitch < 1° – -4° < roll < 4° – -1° < yaw < 1° – -2 < r < 2 cm– -10 < z < 10 cm– -5° < φ < 5°

• Simulations need to be run and analyzed


46

Ongoing/Future Work

• Ongoing/Future worko Optimization of the opticso Magnetic force studieso Sensitivity studieso Collimator optimizationo Design of the water-cooling and supportso Design of electrical connectionso Look at optics for 3 coils


47

Extra Slides


48

Sector Orientation


49

Collimator Study

see elog 200

Look at focus for different

• Sectors• Parts of target

Useful for optics tweaks and collimator optimization

Ideally the strips would be vertical in these (actually theta vs. radius) plots

http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/MollerSpectrometer/200

http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/MollerSpectrometer/200


50

Water-cooling and supportsVerified by MIT engineers – cooling could be accomplished in concept 2 with 4 turns per loop Still 38 connections per coil!

Suggestion from engineering review: Put the magnets inside the vacuum volume


51


52


53


54

GEANT4 – Upstream Torus


55

GEANT4 – Hybrid Torus


56

GEANT4


57

Direct Comparison of FieldsComplicated field because of multiple current returns

The average total field in a sector in bins of R vs. z

The difference of the total field in a sector in bins of R vs. z for the TOSCA version of the proposal and the original proposal model


58

Comparison of field valuesRed – proposal modelBlack – TOSCA model By (left) or Bx (right) vs. z in 5° bins in phi

-20°— -15°

-25°— -20° -25°— -20°

-5°— 0°

-20°— -15°

-5°— 0°

-15°— -10°

-10°— -5°

-15°— -10°

-10°— -5°


59

Proposal Model

OD (cm)

Acond (cm2)

Total # Wires Current (A) Current per wire J (A/cm2)

X Y Z A X Y Z A

Proposal --- --- --- --- 7748 10627 16859 29160 --- 1100

0.4115 0.1248 40 54 86 146 7989 10785 17176 29160 200 1600

0.4620 0.1568 32 44 70 120 7776 10692 17010 29160 243 1550

0.5189 0.1978 26 36 56 94 8066 11168 17372 29160 310 1568

0.5827 0.2476 20 28 40 76 7680 10752 15360 29184 384 1551


60

Actual Conductor Layout


61

Choose constraints• Choose (standard) conductor size/layout minimizes current density

• Try to use “double pancakes”; as flat as possible

• Minimum bend radius 5x conductor OD

• Fit within radial, angular acceptances (360°/7 and <360°/14 at larger radius)

• Total current in each inner “cylinder” same as proposal model

• Take into account water cooling hole, insulation

• Need to consider epoxy backfill and aluminum plates/ other supports?

Radial extent depends on upstream torus and upstream parts of hybrid!!

Conductor SizeTrade-off between more insulation for smaller conductor and losing space at the “edges” with larger conductor

Also need to fit all the conductor in a particularradius at a given z location

Much bigger conductors have even higher current densities because of “edge” effects

Need to “fill” the available space at low radius

Conductor SizeTrade-off between more insulation for smaller conductor and losing space at the “edges” with larger conductor

Also need to fit all the conductor in a particularradius at a given z location

Much bigger conductors have even higher current densities because of “edge” effects

1LA 1C 1RA

1RB1LB

2LA

3LA

2RA

3RA

2RB2LB

3LB 3RB 1RC1LC

2C

3C

Need to “fill” the available space at low radius


65

Actual conductor layout


66

Actual conductor layout


67

Blocky Model superimposed


68

Keep Out Zones±360°/28

cones are defined using:

nothing w/in 5σ of the multiple scattering radius + 1/4" each for Al support and W shielding

±360°/14


69




±360°/14


70




±360°/14


71

Keep Out Zones/Concept 2±360°/28

±360°/14


72

Interferences


73

Interferences


74

1 (2.0)8 (2.11)7 (2.10)6 (2.9)5 (2.8)4 (2.7)3 (2.6)2 (2.5)1 (2.0)

Tweaking the Optics


75

1 (2.0)8 (2.11)7 (2.10)6 (2.9)5 (2.8)4 (2.7)3 (2.6)2 (2.5)1 (2.0)

Tweaking the Optics


76

1 (2.0)8 (2.11)7 (2.10)6 (2.9)5 (2.8)4 (2.7)3 (2.6)2 (2.5)

Tweaking the Optics


77

1 (2.0)8 (2.11)7 (2.10)6 (2.9)5 (2.8)4 (2.7)3 (2.6)

Tweaking the Optics


78

1 (2.0)8 (2.11)7 (2.10)6 (2.9)5 (2.8)4 (2.7)

Tweaking the Optics


79

1 (2.0)8 (2.11)7 (2.10)6 (2.9)5 (2.8)

Tweaking the Optics


80

1 (2.0)8 (2.11)7 (2.10)6 (2.9)

Tweaking the Optics


81

1 (2.0)8 (2.11)7 (2.10)

Tweaking the Optics


82

1 (2.0)8 (2.11)

Tweaking the Optics


83

1 (2.0)

Tweaking the Optics


84

4.1

middle only (z0 =0 cm), 6.0, 11.5 and 17, phi=0 only

blue – epsred - mollers


85

4.2

middle only (z0 =0 cm), 6.0, 11.5 and 17, phi=0 only

blue – epsgreen - mollers


864.2

4.1 middle (z0 =0 cm) 6.0 to 17 mrads Tracks colored by theta from purple to red (low to high)


874.2

4.1

3.0

4.2

middle (z0 =0 cm) 6.0 to 17 mrads



88

4.3b middle only (z0 =0 cm), 6.0, 11.5 and 17, phi=0 only

blue – epsgreen - mollers


89

4.3b

3.0

• Meshed with no iron for comparison• Used Willy’s conceptual design for iron pieces

• Not optimized in any way• Used thin and thick pieces

• Compared fields (BMOD and BR)• Compared tracks for no iron and thick iron

Note: op3 file names are:

no_iron_in_coils_test_ver2.op3 (smaller mesh size)iron_in_coils_ver3.op3 (thin)iron_in_coils_ver4.op3 (thick)

Outline


91

No iron, coils only

BMODz=1375 cm


92

No iron w/ mesh

BMODz=1375 cm


93

Field on a line, middle of open sectorBMODz=1375 cm, y= 0 cm , 0 < x < -40 cm

With coils only With meshBMOD


94

Model body in mesh


95

thin iron

thick ironIron design


96

thick iron

1 m long, section of tube from 0.5 to 5.5 cm radiusOpening angle, thin: 5 degreesOpening angle, thick: 20 degrees

Placed radially from 5 – 20 cm between 1325 and 1425 cm in z

Iron design


97

Thin Iron w/ mesh

BMODz=1375 cm


98

Thick Iron w/ mesh

BMODz=1375 cm


99

Giant blocks of iron

BMODz=1375 cm


100

No iron w/ mesh

BMODz=1375 cm


101

Thin Iron w/ mesh

BMODz=1375 cm


102

Thick Iron w/ mesh

BMODz=1375 cm


103

Giant blocks of iron

BMODz=1375 cm


104

Vector plotsBMOD


105

Middle of open sector

With thin iron

With no ironBMOD


106

Middle of open sector

With thin iron

With thick ironWith no iron

BMOD


107

Edge of open sector

With thin iron

With no iron

BMOD


108

Edge of open sector

With thin ironWith thick iron

With no iron

BMOD


109

With thin iron

With no iron

Cent

er o

f op

en se

ctor

Z=1375, r = 13.5 cm

BMOD


110

With thin iron

With no iron

Z=1375, r = 13.5 cm

BR


111

With thick iron

With thin iron

Z=1375, r = 13.5 cm

BMOD


112

With thick iron

With thin iron

Z=1375, r = 13.5 cm

BR


113

With no iron

With thick iron

Z=1375, r = 16.0 cm

BMOD


114

With “giant” iron

With thick iron

Z=1375, r = 16.0 cm

BMOD


115

With thick iron

With no iron


116

With no iron

With giant iron


117

With no iron

With giant iron, BFIL 90%


118

With no iron

With giant iron, BFIL 80%


119


120

Summary

No optimization of the iron was done

According to this preliminary work, is 2% greater for the thick iron

1.11 T m → 1.13T m∙ ∙

Lowest tracks radial position at detector plane increased 2 cm (compared to 90 cm)

Do NOT see a dramatic increase in the quality of the focus or size of the field

Radial focus may be a little better for transition and closed sectors

MOLLER Spectrometer Update

Documents

Transcript of MOLLER Spectrometer Update