detector working group summary alan bross international scoping study of a neutrino factory &...

Detector Working Group Summary

Alan BrossInternational Scoping Study of a Neutrino Factory & Super-beam

FacilityCERN, September 22-25, 2005

ISS Charge to the Detector Group

Evaluate the options for the neutrino detection systems with a view to defining a baseline set of detection systems to be taken forward in a subsequent conceptual-design phase. Provide a research-and-development program

required to deliver the baseline design.Funding request for three years of detector

R&D 2007-2010 Some difficult choices will have to be

made in order to most efficiently utilize the R&D resources that “might” become available

Detector WG Goals For This Meeting

Agree on the working subgroups Identify one person who will

coordinate the activities of each W-subgroup Make a preliminary definition of the

tasks for the next meeting Begin a list of questions to the

physics group Prepare a mailing list for the group

Don’t let anyone get away

Detector Working Groups

Water Cerenkov Detectors Kenji Kaneyuki

Liquid Argon TPC TBD

Magnetic Sampling Detectors Jeff Nelson

Emulsion Detectors Pasquale Migliozzi

Near Detectors Paul Soler

Detector Concepts

A quick review of existing, planned and forward-looking concepts for neutrino detectors yields an enormous number of exciting potential options for future neutrino experiments of all kinds

Question: How do we proceed in order to answer the ISS charge regarding the detectors? The many technology choices coupled with the a host of

physics issues and an equally varied set of technology choices for the accelerator complex yields what at first glance presents a rather complex phase space of options

However a recent BBC documentary helped me see how we might proceed. One minute of it.

A Difficult Task

Detector Reach

Yesterday Mauro showed

However, the validity of this table depends on what you actual believe about the “reality” [Technical-Extrapolation Cost/performance] of the various detector technologies This is what we must understand in detail

So I will give a quick review of our discussions

“Magnetic” Sampling Detectors

For Beam scenarios the “Magnetic” can be dropped

Large MagneticLarge Magnetic

CalorimetersCalorimeters

Anselmo Cervera Villanueva

University of Geneva(Switzerland)

in a Nufactin a Nufact

Scoping study(CERN, 22/9/2005)

OverviewOverview

Wrong-sign muon analysis Detector requirements The Monolith and LMD detectors Ingredients: Muon identification Charge reconstruction Hadronic backgrounds

Sensitivity to 13

Improvements to be considered Questions

wrongwrongsignsign

muonmuon

Stored +

not detected

D

e

charge misidentified

ee

De e

Charge misidentification

BackgroundsBackgrounds

NC

CC

Hadron decay

e

e

e

50%

50%

in the final state

no other lepton

‘‘Golden’ signature : wrong sign muons Golden’ signature : wrong sign muons detectordetector

Detector requirementsDetector requirements

P

Ehad

had

Large statistics Large mass: ~40 KTons~40 KTons Muon identification: from rangefrom range Charge identification: B~1 TeslaB~1 Tesla Kinematic quantities (for background rejection) From the muon: 3-momentum3-momentum Hadron shower: energy and angleenergy and angle

1. Reasonable number of spatial measurements: every ~5-10 cmevery ~5-10 cm 2. Reasonable transverse resolution: ~1 cm~1 cm

Existing studiesExisting studies

Fast simulation and reconstruction based on MINOS smearing

Muon identification Charge identification Study of background rejection power

and efficiencies Variation of smearing parameters

BB BB

MonolithMonolith LMDLMD

M. SelviM. SelviM. Garbini M. Garbini H. MenghettiH. Menghetti

A. CerveraA. CerveraF. DydakF. DydakJ.J. Gomez-CadenasJ.J. Gomez-Cadenas

Full simulation and reconstruction

Careful study of the hadronic angular resolution, including test beam

Charge identification

The MONOLITH DetectorThe MONOLITH Detector

Large mass ~ 35 ktonMagnetized Fe spectrometer B = 1.3 Tesla (toroidal)Space resolution ~ 1 cm (3cm pitch in x and y) Time resolution ~ 1 ns (for up/down discrimination in atmospherics)Momentum resolution (p/p) ~ 20% from track curvature for outgoing muons ~ 6% from range for stopping muons

Hadron E resolution (Eh /Eh) ~ 90%/Eh 30%

30 m

13.1 m

14.5 m

8 cm

2.2 cm

Fe

Fe

B BGlass Spark Counters

(RPC’s with glass electrodes

beam

Monolith was invented for the detection of atmospheric neutrinos: Horizontal measurement planes: parallel to neutrino beam direction

A test beam was carried out with perpendicular planes

The Large Magnetic DetectorThe Large Magnetic Detector

Geant3 simulation: Multiple scattering and energy loss Decays Nuclear interactions

Full reconstruction is not practical since one has to simulate ~107 events for each setting Smearing according to the MINOS proposal

Simulation

iron (4 cm) + scintillators (1cm)

beam

20 m

20 m

20 m

B=1 T

1cm transverse resolution

8xMINOS (5.4 KT)8xMINOS (5.4 KT)

40KT40KT

Ideal detectorIdeal detector Longitudinal segmentation

Large density of measurement planes needed for charge identification At least 1 every 5 cm: 10-5 effect for p>2.5 GeV This could be improved either with a stronger B field (default 1T) or with iron

free regions Transverse resolution

Not important for the charge (dominated by ms) Important for rejection of right-sign-muons from D decays At least 1 cm transverse resolution

Hadronic angular resolution: Depends on the previous parameters 5cm and 1cm respectively gives better resolution that the one assumed by

LMD, as demonstrated by the Monolith test-beam. This would reduce by a factor of 3 the hadronic backgrounds obtained in the LMD

study.

Hadron energy resolution: Depends on longitudinal segmentation mainly. This is important for the reconstruction of the neutrino energy The shape of the ws-muon spectrum as a function of the neutrino energy is

crucial for a simultaneous measurement of 13 and cp

The neutrino energy resolution has not being studied yet

Iron free regions ?Iron free regions ? A muon of 1 GeV will traverse at least 1 iron-free module One has to design the detector such that the muon traverses at least one

iron-free module after the extinction of the hadronic shower, to facilitate pattern recognition.

The measurement of the momentum and the charge is considerably improved in the iron-free region.

One can probably reduce the number of active planes in the iron region: Less hadronic energy/angle resolution. Find a compromise.

1m Iron (4cm) + active (1cm) Iron (4cm) + active (1cm) air + active (1cm)air + active (1cm)

hadron showerhadron showermuonmuon

This full structure is repeated

QuestionsQuestions

Is it possible to have a longitudinal segmentation better than 5 cm at a reasonable cost ?

Is it possible to have a magnetic field stronger than 1 tesla in such a large structure?

What is the best scheme for producing the magnetic field ? Would it be enough to have a magnetic field in the iron-free regions ? What is the impact of the iron-free regions in the development of the

hadronic shower ? I haven’t thought much about that, but if we are interested in low

energy neutrinos, is still 50GeV/c the preferred momentum for the stored muons?

SummarySummary

There are many questions to be addressed The current knowledge is a good starting point for future studies: Simulations:

Sensitivity for other detector configurations with the new physics requirements

Revisit the different strategies taking into account the existence of degeneracies and the possibility of combining several baselines and golden-silver channels

Hardware tests: Study the detector resolution with small prototypes. Tests with magnetic fields

Cost estimates

INDIA-BASED NEUTRINO OBSERVATORY (INO)

STATUS REPORT

Naba K Mondal Tata Institute of Fundamental Research

Mumbai, India

NUFACT Scoping Study Meeting at CERN, 22-24 September, 2005

India-based Neutrino Observatory initiative

• Two phase approach:

R & D and ConstructionPhase I

Physics studies,Detector R & D,Site survey,Human resource development

Phase IIConstruction of the detector

Operation of the Detector

Phase IPhysics with Atmospheric Neutrinos

Phase IIPhysics with Neutrino beam from

a factory

Goal: A large mass detector with charge identification capability

Physics with Neutrino beam from NUFACT – Phase II

• Determination of • Sign of m2

23

• Probing CP violation in leptonic sector

• Matter effect in oscillation

Role of Phase I as a test detector for the factory era

• Currently we only have experience of running magnetised iron detector of up to 5 kton. No experience of running a large mass magnetised detector.

• So during phase I of the operation of the INO detector while we do interesting physics using atmospheric neutrinos, it can also be used as a test detector for the factory era and to improve upon it .

• The modular nature of this detector can even allow us to try out more than one options for the active elements like RPC, scintillators …

• While we have a supporting funding agency in India we need international support and collaboration to achieve this.

NOA

A Magnetic Tracking Calorimeter for a Neutrino Factory - Ideas &

Issues

Jeff Nelson

William & MaryWilliamsburg, Virginia

1st Meeting, Detector Working Group International Neutrino Factory & Super-beam Scoping Study

CERN22, September 2005

NuFact ISS CERN 9/05

• Preamble

• Some history>Studies of sampling trackers for super beams

>Reminder: comments from my nufact05 talk

• Making a large device> Ideas from MINOS, NOvA & MINERvA

>A concept I think we can build as a starting point

• Thoughts for moving forward

Outline


What Should It be Able to Do?

• Goal: map the oscillations down to the 2nd dip > Down to 2 GeV neutrinos

• Want to get …> Good muon charge ID > Good hadronic calorimetry for neutrino energy

• Harder as Ehad goes down

• Can get …> Good electron counting (without charge ID)

• Is this useful?• What resolution is useful?

• Can we get do tau ID/counting like NOMAD?> How pure is useful?


Making a Bigger Torus

• FEA by R. Wands (Fermilab) & J.K. Nelson >No inherent limitations in current>I = 40kA * (r/10m)>Recall MINOS

ND is 40kA

• Perfectly feasible


Readout Options

• RPC vs Solid Scintillator>Costs are indiscernible>[NOvA 11/03 proposal appendix & PAC

presentation from 11/03 (next slide)]

• Solid vs Liquid>Active components 33% cheaper for

liquid


50kt NOvA Sampling Detector

The sampling design had ~400m2 and 1000 samples

Not fully loaded costs – only to show relative scaling

Use absolute costs from NOvA Proposal (summary in a later slide)

Solid PMT

Solid APD

Liquid APD

Scintillator 22.3 27.3 14.2

optical fibers 12.0 12.0 12.0

Scintillator Assembly 25.7 21.4 13.5

Photodetector 7.5 1.7 1.7

Electronics (not DAQ) 15.3 8.4 8.4

Sum 82.8 70.8 49.8 ($M)


MINOS has too much light(& works too hard to get it!)

Distance along the scintillator (m)

Num

ber

of

obse

rved p

hoto

ele

ctro

nsAPDs vs PMTs

• Cost dramatically lower per channel

• 8× quantum efficiency of a M16/M64 PMT

APD relaxes the light yield requirements >Allows longer cells>Allows smaller fibers


NOvA Far Detector

• Liquid scintillator cells>1984 planes of cells

• Cell walls>Extruded rigid PVC>3 mm outer; 2 mm inner

• Readout >U-shaped 0.8 mm WLS fiber>Acts like a prefect mirror >APDs (80% QE)

0.8 mm looped fiber

15.7 m


MINERvA Optics (Pioneered by DØ Preshower)

• Significantly enhance position resolution for wider strips

• Could make the same cell geometry for liquid cells too

Particle


A Strawman Concept for a Nufact Iron Tracker Detector

• 15m diameter polygon> 4 piece laminate> Can be thin if planes

interconnected• e.g. down to 1cm

> Idea from 1st NOVA Proposal

• 60kA-turn central coil> 0.5m x 0.5m> Average field of 1.5T> Extrapolation of MINOS

• Triangular liquid scintillator cells> Structure based on NOvA

using MINERvA-like shapes

> 4cm x 6cm cells (starting point)

> 3mm thick PVC walls> Looped WLS fibers & APDs

• A sample would look like> 1 cm Fe> 0.7 cm PVC> 3.3 cm LS> 2/3rds Fe; ρ ≈ 2> Based on 175M$ for 90kt


Summary

• Detector is feasible> Large area toroidal fields can by directly extrapolated

from MINOS design> Can now make an affordable large are scintillator

readout with NOvA APD technology> Enhanced position resolution with MINERvA-like

triangles> Costs are all from 2004/2005

• Optimize sampling to get lower tracking threshold for charge ID> Would also give good electron counting

• Come up with parameterization of resolutions, efficiency/fake rate, & costs for optimization

A Magnetized Nova

Basically the NOvA detector.

Planes of plastic tubes filled with liquid scintillator.

Fully active: Good for electron identification

Total mass: 30 kilotons. 150m long, 15.7m x 15.7 m. Surrounded by coils providing a magnetic field. Use the ATLAS toroid coils as examples.

The advantage over a magnetic iron detector is that it also gives us a handle on the momentum and charge of the hadrons as well as those of the muons.

NOMAD was a successful magnetic detector that used this principle.

Leslie Camillieri

Detector concept: End view

“Nova-Like” Detector Coil

Coil

Return yoke

Leslie Camillieri

Detector concept: Side view

10 coils per side

More details

ATLAS has 8 rectangular coils each 25m x 5m. Superconducting.120 turns per coil20.5 kAField at centre 0.41 TCost is 75 MCHF

NOvA is 15m high, so lets’s modify the coil to 15m x 15m same circumferenceNOvA is ~ 150m long, so we would need 10 coils on either side 20 coilsWe don’t need such a big field for the charge: drop it to 0.15T. Reduce the number of turns/coil.Does the decrease in number of turns compensate the increase in number of coils?Do we need a superconducting setup?

With such a small field and with iron saturating at about 1.8T, the cross section of the return yoke need only be 25m x (15m x 0.15/1.8) ~ 25m x 0.75m per coil pair

Performance Each tube: 15.7m long, 3.8cm transverse to the beam, 6cm along the beam. Precision per coordinate 3.8 / (12)1/2 = 1.2 cm. Track length given by muon range, but taken to be maximum of 50m.

Momentum(GeV/c) Range(m) Curvature(1/R) m-1 # Stand. dev

2 10.4 0.06 5.6

6 29.7 0.02 10.0

10 48.2 0.012 13.0

20 92.6 0.006 13.0

30 135.7 0.004 13.0

50 219.2 0.0024 13.0

Liquid Argon TPC

Two Approaches

Giant Liquid Argon Charge Imaging Experiment

A. Rubbia

LAr Physics Reach

Glacier

Glacier with Magnet

Magnetized LAr TPC Tests

Future Magnetized LAr Prototype

US LAr TPC R&D

US LAr Collaboration

Water Cerenkov

Water Cerenkov Jean-Eric Campagne

Major Issues Extremely Large Detectors

Excavation/Cavern issues Photodetector

How can you cover such large area Production Issues

– Hand-blown tubes still

Magnetized WC has been mentioned, but no serious scenarios exits at present and extrapolation to future is difficult

Hybrid Emulsion Detectors

Hybrid emulsion detector for the neutrino factory

Giovanni De Lellis

University of Naples“Federico II”

•Recall the physics case•The detector technology•Future prospects

Recalling the physics case

• Study the CP violation in the leptonic sector: e µ the most sensitive (“golden”) channel

• In the (13,) measurement, ambiguities arise– Intrinsic degeneracy [Nucl. Phys. B608 (2001) 301] m2 sign degeneracy [JHEP 0110 (2001) 1]

– [23, /2 -23] symmetry [Phys. Rev. D65 073023 (2002)]

• The “silver” channel (e and µ) is one way of solving the intrinsic degeneracy at the neutrino factory– A. Donini et al., Nucl. Phys. B646 (2002) 321.

• An hybrid emulsion detector is considered– D. Autiero et al., Euro. Phys. J. C33 (2004) 243

Golden and silver channels

truemeas

90,1:parametersInput 13

ambiguities

Solving the ambiguities

A hybrid emulsion detector

8.3kg

10 X0

Pb

Emulsion layers

1 mm

10.2 x 12.7 x 7.5 cm3

• Target based on the Emulsion Cloud Chamber (ECC) concept• Emulsion films (trackers) interleaved by lead plates (passive)• At the same time capable of large mass (kton) and high spatial resolution (<1m) in a modular structure

The basic unit : the « brick »

ECC topological and kinematical measurements• Neutrino interaction vertex and decay topology reconstruction• Measurement of hadron momenta by Multiple scattering• dE/dx for /µ separation at the end of their range• Electron identification and energy measurement• Visual inspection at microscope replaced by kinematical measurements in emulsion

8 GeVECC technique successfully used in cosmic rays (X-particle discovery in 1971) and by

DONUT for the direct observation

Electronic detector task

supermodule

8 m

Target Trackers

Pb/Em. target

ECC emulsion analysis:

Vertex, decay kink e/ ID, multiple scattering, kinematics

Extract selected brick

Pb/Em. brick

8 cm Pb 1 mm

Basic “cell”

Emulsion

trigger and location of neutrino interactions muon identification and momentum/charge measurement

Electronic detectors:

Brick finding, muon ID, charge and p

Link to muon ID,Candidate event

Spectrometer

p/p < 20%

Emulsion Detector for Future Neutrino Research

Possibility of the Technology

NAKAMURA M. (NAGOYA Univ.)

OPERA ECC Brick

１０ｃｍ

１２．５ｃｍ8cm

8kg ：　 Portable Unit for 2~10kton detectors

P

π

P andπ

Using 5 ~ 6 films.VPH, measured by the system, is ~propotional to dE/dX. Error bar is 1σof the distribution. At 2 GeV/c , proton and pion are not separated in 5 or 6 OPERA films.VPH of proton below 0.6GeV/c is saturated.

Particle ID by dE/dx Measurement

K

dE/dx(MeV・cm2/g)

Momentum(GeV/c)

VPH

e

KEK Beam Test Preliminary

Electron energy measurement

MC Data

)(E

4.0~

GeV

@ a few GeVEnergy determination by calorimetric method( in study)

Test exp. @ CERN

Emulsion in Magnetic Field

• Charge Sign determination + increase sensitivity + increase BG-rejection power

o scanning load (mention later) o cost??

• We have experience in CHORUS/ET(Emulsion Tracker)

Structure for MC study

Stainless steel or Lead Film

Air Gap

DONUT/OPERA type target + Emulsion spectrometer

B

~ 3Xo ~10Xo

Assumption: accuracy of film by film alignment =10 micron (conservative).(Ex. 20mm gap structure gives 0.5mrad angular resolution.)

mu

Charge determination (0.5T) MC

P(GeV/ c) Eff. 20mm Eff. 30mm1 99.93% 99.96%2 99.95% 99.97%3 99.94% 99.67%4 99.90% 99.98%5 99.83% 99.96%6 99.58% 99.97%7 98.98% 99.97%8 97.97% 99.96%9 96.78% 99.97%

10 95.32% 99.95%

10mm Gap

20mm Gap

>=30mm Gap

0.008

0.25

3

60

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

TS(TTL) NTS(CPLD) UTS(FPGA) S-UTS

Scanning System Historyviews/sec(1view=120×90 m2)

Evolution of the Scanning Power

Our code name (device technology)

CHORUS DONUT OPERA

Expected evolution of the Scanning Power in near future

• Enlarge a Field of View × (1.25)2 reduce objective mag. × 50 -> × 40

• Speed up Image data taking ×4 Ultra High Speed Camera 3kfps->12kfps.

400cm2/hours/system. (~1m2/day/system)

How many events?Scanning Power

1 m2/day/system~ 100events/day/system ( OPERA like ECC 1event/brick ~100cm2/event)

~25,000events/year/system Normally one lab has ~10 system ~250,000 events/year/lab.

Events in Neutrino Factory

160,000 events/kton

(L=3000km,1021mu+ decays)

Near Detector Issues

Preliminary Ideas for a Near Detector Preliminary Ideas for a Near Detector at a Neutrino Factoryat a Neutrino FactoryPreliminary Ideas for a Near Detector Preliminary Ideas for a Near Detector at a Neutrino Factoryat a Neutrino Factory

Neutrino Factory Scoping Study Meeting

23 September 2005Paul Soler

University of Glasgow/RAL

Neutrino Factory Scoping Study Meeting CERN 22-23 September

76

1. Near detector aims1. Near detector aims Long baseline neutrino oscillation systematics:

– Flux control and measurement for the long baseline search.– Neutrino beam angle and divergence– Beam energy and spread– Control of muon polarization

Near detector neutrino physics:– Cross-section measurements: DIS, QES, RES scattering– sin2W - sin2W ~ 0.0001– Parton Distribution Functions, nuclear shadowing S from xF3 - S~0.003– Charm production: |Vcd| and |Vcs|, D0/ D0 mixing– Polarised structure functions– polarization– Beyond SM searches

General Purpose Detector(s)!!


77

2. Flux normalisation (cont.)2. Flux normalisation (cont.)

e

e

e

e

Neutrino beams from decay of muons:

Spectra at Production (e.g. 50 GeV) Number CC interactions

Polarisation dependence

P=+1: gone!

Need to measure polarization!!


78

2. Flux normalisation (cont.)2. Flux normalisation (cont.)

Rates:— E = 50 GeV

— L = 100 m, d = 30 m— Muon decays per year: 1020

— Divergence = 0.1 m/E— Radius R=50 cm

100 m

E.g. at 25 GeV, number neutrino

interactions per year is:

20 x 106 in 100 g per cm2 area.

Yearly event rates

High granularity in inner region

that subtends to far detector.


79

High granularity in inner region that subtends to far detector. Very good spatial resolution: charm detection Low Z, large Xo Electron ID Does the detector have to be of same/similar technology as far detector?

7. Near detector technologies7. Near detector technologies

Does not need to be very big (eg. R~50-100 cm)

Possibilities:— silicon or fibre tracker in a

magnet with calorimetry, electron and muon ID (eg. NOMAD-STAR??)

— Liquid argon calorimeter


80

7.1 Vertex detector with spectrometer 7.1 Vertex detector with spectrometer R&D in NOMAD for short baseline detector based on silicon:

NOMAD-STAR

Does not need to be very big (eg. R~50-100 cm)


81

Why do we believe that the neutrino fluxes

can be determined to +- 10-3

at a Neutrino Factory?Alain Blondel

source: M. Apollonio et al, OSCILLATION PHYSICS WITH A NEUTRINO FACTORYarXiv:hep-ph/0210192 v1 13 Oct 2002

Flux Control and Resulting Constraints on the Decay Ring Design


82

Muon Polarizationmuon polarization is too small to be very useful for physics (AB, Campanelli) but it must be monitored. In addition it is precious for energy calibration (Raja&Tollestrup, AB)

a muon polarimeter would perform the momentum analysis of the decay electrons at the end of a straight section. Because of parity violation in muon decay the ratio of high energy to low energy electrons is a good polarization monitor.


83

muon polarization

here is the ratio of

# positons with E in [0.6-0.8] Eto number of muons in the ring. There is no RF in the ring.

spin precession and depolarization are clearly visibleThis is the Fourier Transform of the muon energy spectrum(AB)amplitude=> polarizationfrequency => energydecay => energy spread.

E/E and E/E to 10-6

polarization to a few percent. Raja Tollestrup, AB


84

Main parameters to MONITOR 1. Total number of muons circulating in the ring, BCT, near detector for purely leptonic processes 2. muon beam polarisation, polarimeter 3. muon beam energy and energy spread, race-track or triangle. NO BOW-TIE! +polarimeter 4. muon beam angle and angular divergence. straight section design +beam divergence monitors e.g. Cerenkov 5. Theory of decay, including radiative effects OK

Yes, we believe that the neutrino flux can be monitored to 10-3 IF + design of accelerator foresees sufficient diagnostics. + quite a lot of work to do to design and simulate these diagnostics.

Conclusions I


85

Main parameters to MONITOR 1. Total number of ions circulating in the ring, BCT, near detector for purely leptonic processesthere is no inverse muon decay, must rely on neutral current. Some model dependence? 2. ion beam polarisation, NO they are spin 0! no problem 3. ion beam energy and energy spread, no polarization -- need magnetic field measurement. precision required a few 10-4 (evt. rate goes like E3)

4. ion beam angle and angular divergence. beam divergence monitor e.g. Cerenkov ?? 5. Theory of ion decay, including radiative effects To be done neutrino flux can probably be monitored to a few 10-3

– somewhat more difficult than for muons, but not impossible. provided: + design of accelerator foresees sufficient diagnostics.

+ quite a lot of work to do to design and simulate these diagnostics and near detector

Conclusions II: and the Beta-beam?

Underlying Detector Technology EffortsPlastic Scintillator – Anna Pla

Plastic Scintillator extrusion facility at Fermilab

Lost-cost scintillator

Extrapolations to 5-10X the size of MINOS possible

Underlying Detector Technology Efforts

Hybrid Photodetector – Christian Joram

C. Joram CERN / PH International Scoping Study CERN Meeting September 2005 88

A ‘half-scale’ prototypeA ‘half-scale’ prototype208 mm (~8-inch)

Al coating2 rings

Development in collaboration with Photonis-DEP, C. Fontaine et al.

C. Joram CERN / PH International Scoping Study CERN Meeting September 2005 89

e, ,

CC reactionsin H2O

segmented photosensitive ‘wall’about 250 × 250 m2

Fiducial detectorvolume ~ 1.5 Mt

(E below threshold for production)

~ 50 m

e±, ± 42°Che

renk

ov lig

ht

Cherenkov light

Principle of neutrino detection by Cherenkov effectin C2GT (CERN To Gulf of Taranto)

The wall is made of ~600 mechanical modules (10 x 10 m2), each carrying 49 optical modules.

10

m

A. Ball et al., C2GT, Memorandum, CERN-SPSC-2004-025, SPSC-M-723

A. Ball et al., Proc. of the RICH2004 conference, subm. to NIM A

Back to Detector WG Goals

Tasks Understand in detail the detection efficiency, sign

determination capability, and background discrimination for Muons Electrons Taus

– And this should include data in bins of neutrino and lepton E– We will have to define a framework for all to follow

Quantify the detectors NC/CC discrimination Hadronic energy resolution

Setup GLOBE files each of the detector technologies Allow credible extrapolation of the feasible detector

performance First Iteration on cost

To allow Honest (equal-footing) performance comparisons

Request to the theorists Review the issue of interactions on nuclei

Conclusions

So as you have seen, there is a rich body of work to draw upon for future neutrino detectors.

How to limit the scope for detailed R&D leading to a conceptual design for 1 or 2 detectors will be an iterative process and will require input (Direction!) from the Physics and Accelerator Facility WGs, an open mind and tremendous discipline.

We should not be afraid to investigate aggressive approaches to technologies, but must remain “Earth Bound”

A focused Detector R&D based on this type of optimization study will have an enormously large impact on future neutrino experiments regardless of whether they are at a Neutrino Factory, Beam Facility, Super Beam, or even a Not-So Super Beam Likely to even extend beyond Neutrino Physics –

Experimental Astrophysics, for example. A good time is likely to be had by All

detector working group summary alan bross international scoping study of a neutrino factory &...

Documents

detector group

detector concepts

available slide

detectors u paul soler

neutrino detectors

group u dont

difficult task slide

years of detector rd