Minutes of the MUCOOL Friday Meeting
   21st July 2000


 Scribes:  Dan Kaplan, Steve Geer


1.  Valerie discussed results from a first look at creating a 200 MHz 
    bunched muon testbeam. Valeries conclusion was that it would take 
    about 50m of cooling channel to create a reasonable bunch. 


2.  Dan summarized the recent CERN instrumentation meeting:

Dan Kaplan reported on the Muon Plenary and Muon Instrumentation meetings
at CERN.  (Both meetings have web pages at which scans of talks and
summaries of discussions will gradually appear - see
http://muonstoragerings.cern.ch/Events/11072000/110700.html and
http://bdl.home.cern.ch/bdl/instr.html.)  At the plenary meeting Dan
presented an "Update on MuCool Activities at Fermilab" stressing work
since Monterey, e.g. Valeri's Double-Flip and comparison of channels,
Dan's work on DFOFO with reentrant cavities, the need to use a standard
figure of merit in comparing channels, and our thinking on a cooling
demonstration experiment: i.e. that it needs to test the real issues that
will limit cooling performance, to be identified by simulation studies yet
to come.  Probably this will require a substantial effort and expense
implying international collaboration.  Dydak notably expressed agreement
with this viewpoint, but some of the young people (e.g. Edgecock) are
still enthusiastic about a "proof of principle."

At the Muon Instrumentation meeting the attempt was made to discuss all
possible techniques for monitoring the muon beam within the cooling
channel, including 1) scintillation light and Cherenkov radiation emitted
in the liquid hydrogen vessels, 2) transition radiation from the liquid
hydrogen vessel windows, and 3) (quasi-)destructive beam diagnostics which
could be inserted in various places along the muon cooling system:

        o       SEED detectors (Jim Norem and Nick Solomey)
        o       arrays of small ionization chambers (Mayda Velasco)
        o       Cherenkov plates and transition radiation detectors
                (Klaus Hanke and Tom Ypsilantis)

Koziol discussed electrostatic, electromagnetic, and magnetic pickups but
thought that they would be impractical due to pickup, especially if
open-cell RF cavities are used.  It is clear that all of these techniques
will be difficult, not only because of the difficulty of access but also
because of the amount of background that is likely to accompany the muons
along the channel.  The view was thus expressed by an experienced
accelerator guy that maybe the only diagnostic that would really work
would be to look at the number of muons emerging at the end within the
acceptance of the acceleration, and that that might be sufficient if one
were sufficiently intelligent in tuning up the cooling channel.

Edgecock and Cappi summarized (respectively) existing muon beamlines
around the world at which cooling tests could be carried out and
possibilities for a high-intensity bunched muon beam at the CERN PS.

All of these discussions were rather qualitative and approximate.  What is
needed next is quantitative calculations and simulations.  So far Alain
Blondel has volunteered to work on these but possibly no one else.  It
would be good to have more volunteers wade in before the next meeting,
tentatively scheduled for Nov. 3-4 at IIT.

3.  Ed Black showed the latest cooling channel drawings and a first 
    attempt at a schedule (to show how long it might take to construct
    a section).