PARIS projectand Hispec/Despec

PARIS PARIS projectproject

andand HispecHispec//DespecDespec

Adam MajAdam Maj

IFJ PAN Kraków, Poland(On (On behalfbehalf ofof thethe PARIS PARIS collaborationcollaboration))

Adam.Maj@ifj.edu.pl

www.maj.w.pl

www.paris.w.pl

GANILGANILSAC open sessionOctober 19th, 2006

4-5-6th October, 2005 „Future prospects for high resolution gamma spectroscopy at GANIL” - Convenors : Bob Wadsworth and Wolfram Korten

WG „Collective modes in continuum” – convenors: Silvia Leoni $ Adam Maj

Inner (hemi-)sphere, highly granular, will be made of new crystals (LaBr3(Ce), LaCl3,

CeZnTe), rather short (up to 5 cm). The readout might be performed with APDs or with

digital electronics which would offer the possibility of pulse shape analysis.

The inner-sphere will be used as a multiplicity filter of high resolution, sum-energy

detector (calorimeter), detector for the gamma-transitions up 10 MeV with relatively good

resolution (better than 3%). I will serve also for fast timing application.

Outer (hemi-)sphere, with lower granularity but with high volume detectors, rather long

(at least 15 cm), could be made from conventional crystals (BaF2 or CsI), or using

existing detectors (Chateau de Crystal or HECTOR).

The outer-sphere will measure high-energy photons or serve as an active shield for the

inner one.

7 physics cases proposed+

the intention to investigate designs for a novel gamma-calorimeterbenefiting from recent advances in scintillator technology,

with dynamical range from 100 keV to 50 MeV

(investigate the possibility for developping a 2-shell calorimeter: “γγγγ-telescope”)

a)a) JacobiJacobi shapeshape transitionstransitions120Cd, 98Mo, 71Zn (A. Maj, J. Dudek et al.)

b) b) Studies of shape phase diagrams of hot nuclei Studies of shape phase diagrams of hot nuclei –– GDR GDR

differential methodsdifferential methods

186-193Os, 190-197Pt(A. Maj, I. (A. Maj, I. MazumdarMazumdar et al.)et al.)

c) Hot GDR c) Hot GDR studiesstudies inin neutron neutron richrich nucleinuclei

128<A<144 (D.R. Chakrabarty, M. Kmiecik et al.)

d) d) IsospinIsospin mixing at finite temperaturemixing at finite temperature68Se, 80Zr, 84Mo, 96Cd, 112Ba(M. Kicińska-Habior et al.)

e) e) Onset of the Onset of the multifragmentationmultifragmentation and the GDRand the GDR120<A<140, 180<A<200(J.P. Wieleczko, D. Santonocito et al.)

f) f) Reaction dynamicsReaction dynamics by means of by means of γγγγγγγγ--ray measurementsray measurements

214-222Ra, 118-226Th, 229-234U(Ch. Schmitt, O. Dorvaux et al.)

g) g) HeavyHeavy ionion radiativeradiative capturecapture

24Mg, 28Si (S. Courtin, D.G. Jenkins et al.)

NU

CLEA

RS

HA

PES

REA

CTIO

NM

EC

HA

NIS

MS

ISO

SP

IN

S

YM

METR

Y

Hig

h

Hig

h e

ffic

ien

cy

eff

icie

ncy

calo

rim

etr

calo

rim

etr

for

hig

h

for

hig

h e

nerg

yen

erg

yγγ γγγγ γγ --

rays

rays

+

γγγγ-multiplicity

filter + RFD orVAMOS or AD

INDRA or FAZIA

γγγγ-multiplicityfilter

γγγγ-multiplicity filter+ RFD or VAMOS

γγγγ-multiplicity filter

γγγγ-multiplicity filter

+ RFD or VAMOS or CORSET-like

LISE or RFD

PHYSICS CASESPHYSICS CASES

A formal PARIS collaboration was established (see www.paris.w.pl)

Management:Project Leader: A. Maj (Krakow)

Deputies: D. Jenkins (York), J.A. Scarpacci (Orsay), J.P. Wieleczko (GANIL)

PARIS Steering Committee:

F. Azaiez (Orsay, F) - chairman

D. Balabanski (INRE, BG)

W. Catford (Surrey, UK)

D. Chakrabarty (BARC, India)

Z. Dombradi (ATOMKI, H)

S. Courtin (Strasbourg, F)

J. Gerl (GSI, D)

D. Jenkins (York, UK) - deputy chairman

S. Leoni (Milan, I)

A. Maj (Krakow, PL)

J.A. Scarpaci (Orsay, F)

Ch. Schmidt (Lyon, F)

J.P. Wieleczko (GANIL, F)

Working groups and their coordinators:

GEANT4 simulations:O. Stezowski (Lyon)

Calorimeter scenarios:D. Jenkins (York)

Mechanical design:S. Courtin (Strasbourg)

Detectors and electronics:O. Dorvaux (Strasbourg), F. Camera (Milan)

Theory and Physics cases: C. Schmidt (Lyon), I. Mazumdar (Mumbai)

Connections to other detectors:M. Rousseau (Strassbourg)

The PARIS collaboration (status on 26.11.2007)IFJ PAN Kraków (Poland): P. Bednarczyk, M. Kmiecik, B. Fornal, J. Grebosz, A. Maj, W. Meczynski, K. Mazurek, S. Myalski, J. Styczen, M. Zieblinski, M. Ciemala, A.

Czermak. R. Wolski

IPN Orsay (France): F. Azaiez, J.A. Scarpaci, S. Franchoo. I. Stefan

CSNSM Orsay (France): G. Georgiev, A. Lefebvre-Schuhl

University of York (UK): D.G. Jenkins, M.A. Bentley, B.R . Fulton, R. Wadsworth, O. Roberts

IPN Lyon (France): Ch. Schmidt, O. Stezowski, N. Redon

IPHC Strasbourg (France): O. Dorvaux, S. Courtin, C. Beck, D. Curien, B. Gall, F. Haas, D. Lebhertz, M. Rousseau, M.-D. Salsac, L. Stuttgé, J. Dudek

GANIL Caen (France): J.P. Wieleczko, S. Grevy, A. Chbihi, G. Verde, J. Frankland, M. Ploszajczak, A. Navin, G. De France, M. Lewitowicz

LPC-ENSI Caen (France): O. Lopez, E. Vient

Warsaw University (Poland): M. Kicinska-Habior, J. Srebrny, M. Palacz, P. Napiórkowski

IPJ Swierk, Otwock (Poland): M. Moszynski

BARC Mumbai (India): D.R. Chakrabarty, V.M. Datar, S. Kumar, E.T. Mirgule, A. Mitra, P.C. Rout

TIFR Mumbai (India): I. Mazumdar, V. Nanal, R.G. Pillay

University of Delhi, New Delhi (India): S.K. Mandal

University of Surrey, Guildford (UK): Z. Podolyak, P.R. Regan, S. Pietri, P. Stevenson

GSI Darmstadt (Germany): M. Górska, J. Gerl

University of Oslo (Norway): S. Siem

Oak Ridge (US): N. Schunck

ATOMKI Debrecen (Hungary): Z. Dombradi, D. Sohler, A. Krasznahorkay, G. Kalinka, J.Gal, J.Molnar

INRNE, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia (Bulgaria): D. Balabanski,University of Sofia (Bulgaria): S. Lalkovski, K. Gladnishki, P. Detistov

NBI Copenhagen (Denmark): B. Herskind, G. Sletten

UMCS Lublin (Poland): K. Pomorski

HMI Berlin (Germany): H.J. KrappeLBNL, Berkeley, CA (US): M.-A. Deleplanque, F. Stephens, I-Y. Lee

iThemba LABS (RSA): R. Bark, P. Papka, J. Lawrie

DSM/Dapnia CEA Saclay (France): C. Simenel

INFN-LNS, Catania (Italy): D. SantonocitoInstitute of Nuclear Physics, NCSR "Demokritos", Athens (Greece): S. Harissopulos, A. Lagoyannis, T. Konstantinopoulos

Istanbul University, Instambul (Turkey): M.N. Erduran, M.Bostan, A. Tutay, M. Yalcinkaya, I. Yigitoglu,E. Ince, E. Sahin

Nigde University, Nigde (Turkey): S. Erturk

Erciyes University, Kayseri (Turkey): I.. BoztosunAnkara University, Ankara (Turkey): A. Ataç-Nyberg

Kocaeli University, Kocaeli (Turkey): T. Güray

Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions, JINR, Dubna, Russia: A. Fomichev, S. Krupko, V. Gorshkov.

Uppsala University, (Sweden): H. MachKVI, Groningen, (The Netherlands): M. Harakeh

INFN and University Milano (Italy): S Brambilla, F. Camera, S. Leoni, O. Wieland.

LPSC Grenoble(France): G. Simpson

The Weizmann Institute Rehovot (Israel): M. Haas

INFN Napoli (Italy): D. Pierroutsakou

38 institutions from 16 countries≈ 100 physicists, engineers andPhD students

FP7 proposal

Frame for common preparation with EXOGAM2 (+Agata Demonstrator).

Also possibility for synergy with Neutron Array and GASPARD

Discussion are going on with VAMOS group

Considering new LoI to install Krakow Recoil Filter Detector in GANIL, to

be used for fusion-evaporation reactions with intense stable and RI beams

Main goals: Design and construct PARIS prototypeSign MoU between partners of PARIS collaboration

141 kEuro

promised

Spiral2 Preparatory Phase FP7 project

• PARIS simulation package established –

concentric two-shells (Lyon group)http://nz22-13.ifj.edu.pl/~myalski/paris/file/Paris1.4.1.tar.gz

• Concentric two-shell configuration – simulation of energy

distribution between shells and efficiency (Lyon group)http://nz22-13.ifj.edu.pl/~myalski/paris/file/PARIS-ReportSimul-June2007_v2.doc

• A general study on PARIS segmentation (Lyon group)http://nz22-13.ifj.edu.pl/~myalski/paris/file/PARIS_Segmentation.pdf

•PARIS package extended by Cubic two-shell geometry – simulation of the

efficiency (Krakow-Debrecen-Orsay groups)

• http://jacobi.ifj.edu.pl/~maj/PARIS/cube/paris-cubic-geometry.pdf

•PARIS prototype – simulation work has started

• (Krakow-York-Debrecen-Orsay groups)

LaBr3 coupled directly to large CsI

Motivation : inner shell : accurate Mγ and Eγsum for low-energy γ‘s with Eγ up to ≈2MeV

BUT still some high-energy photons requiring good ∆E/Eouter shell : efficient high-energy photon detector

Example:Inner LaBr3 shell with Rin=10cm and Rout=13,15,17 and 20cm + Outer CsI shell with Rin=30cm and Rout=45cm

For (5cm-thick inner LaBr3 + 15cm-thick outer CsI) :for Eγ < 1-2MeV : ~ 50% of the γ ‘s absorbed in the inner shellfor Eγ > 10MeV : ~ 20-30% of the γ ‘s absorbed in the outer shell

~ 10-25% of the γ ‘s absorbed in the inner shellfor Eγ > 10MeV : > 30% of the γ ‘s share their energy between the 2 shells

� Reasonable compromise with a 5cm thick inner LaBr3 shell ?efficient for Eγ<2MeV, quite ‘transparent’ for high Eγ, still absorbs some high Eγ ‘s

� Fair partition of the E deposit between the 2 shells is by far negligible :could one reconstruct such events ?

IPN Lyon

Two-shell configuration

IPN Lyon

Test case : Inner LaBr3 shell with Rin=10cm and Rout=15cm + Outer CsI shell with Rin=30cm and Rout=45cm

Energy deposit pattern via the energy-weighted (ϑϑϑϑ, ϕϕϕϕ) correlation of the shower containing all particles generated by an incident photon γγγγi

Angular and energy spread given by theinteraction processes of γ, e- and e+ in matter

- Compton regime: sizeable dispersion caused by multiple scattering

- Pair-creation regime: progressive well-focused ionisation of the medium

- Photo-electric regime: near to the detector surface

Limited 2D information with (ϑ, φ)

Could the two-shell configuration provide helpful insight into interaction depth ?

> 90% of Eγ deposit close to the 1st interaction point

FWHM Shower spread over (∆ϑ, ∆φ) ≈ (10°, 10°)most suited segmentation :compromise ∆E/E, Doppler effects, pile-up

Opening angle of 10°: ≈ 2’’×2’’ at 14cm, ≈ 1’’ × 1’’ at 7cm( --->> ∆E/E < 4% and pileup < 10% )

Energy deposit pattern – Angular spread

Cubic vs. spherical

•The idea of two concentric layers seems to be rather pertinent, as suggested by the simulations: a) the percentage of fully absorbed events in one of the 2 shells has been found rather large; b) a two-shell design is relevant provided the inner shell is not too much absorbent. In this way, the inner shell fulfils its calorimeter job, while the outer layer is devoted to the detection of high-energy photons.

•Aside from events which are fully absorbed in either of the two shells, a

sizeable percentage of fully absorbed events are γ-rays which share their energy deposit between the 2 layers. Provided we are able to properly reconstruct the energy partition, the global performances of the array can even be further enhanced. This requires further work on segmentation andreconstruction.

•The cubic (or hexagonal?) geometry is worth of further investigation, as itcan provide economical solution for the 2-shell calorimeter.

•It seems to be that the optimal thicknes of the inner LaBr3 shell is 2”, whilethe diameter of the crystals shall be between 1’ and 2” (at 15 cm distancefrom target).

First conclusions

a)a) JacobiJacobi shapeshape transitionstransitions (A. Maj, J. Dudek et al.)

a-1) 4444TiTi (170 MeV 1212CC on 32S or iverse kinematics)PARIS prototype + HECTOR + EXOGAM (+RFD)together with Silvia Leoni et al.2009

a-2) 120120CdCd (900 MeV 94Kr on 26Mg)

PARIS demonstrator (1π) + Agata Demonstrator + HECTOR (+RFD)together with Silvia Leoni et al.

2012-2013

Canditates for „flagship” experiments, common with EXOGAM and AD

New physics cases, that could be done together withAGATA demonstrator (SPIRAL2 and/or FAIR):

•Intermediate energy inelastic scattering or Coulex

•Study of weak isomeric decays produced after fission or fragmentation of relativistic beams from FAIR, within the DESPEC.NUSTAR@FAIR

•Fast beam Coulex/transfer reactions withinHISPEC.NUSTAR@FAIR

θθθθlab [deg]

∆∆ ∆∆E

γ0γ0 γ0γ0/E

γγ γγ0 [%] Opening angle∆θ∆θ∆θ∆θ=3°

ββββ=0.11

ββββ=0.43ββββ=0.57

Important effects affecting γγγγ-ray detection at relativistic beams:

•Doppler shift and broadening

•Angular distribution

•Lorentz boostfragmentation

coulex

β=0.4

Doppler shift factor of 1.5 for β β β β ≈≈≈≈ 40%

P. Bednarczyk

36Ca E(2+) β = 0.545 /48Ca double fragm./

Comparable peak intensity and resolution !

•small opening

•forward angles

•addback mode

•close distance

•segmentation

•backward angles

•high efficiency

∆∆∆∆E/E ~4%

P.Doornenbal et al.,Phys.Lett. B 647, 237 (2007)

8x BaF2

15x7 Ge Cluster

8x3 seg. Ge Cluster

A RISING result EB: ∆t ≈ 12ns

Beam stopper

Target

time

projectile-γ correlation

Debrecen-Sofia-Orsay-Krakowgroup test:

p-γ reaction and 2”x2” crystal

7Li (p,γ) 8Be, E(protons)=441 keV

Time resolution <400ps

LaBr3 crystals

Energy resolution for 17.6 MeV ≈ 100 keV

At high γγγγ-ray energies PARIS may be even more suitable than a Ge array !

Optimization of the inner/outer shell segmentation is needed for good resolution measurements

2006

2008

2007

2010

2009

2012

2011

2014

2013

2016

2015

2017

2019

2018

OR

GA

NIZ

AT

ION

LoI8

PA

RIS

co

ll.

PA

RIS

Mo

U

(PARIS Consortium)PARIS

@SP2 PP

FP7

R&D phasep

roto

typ

e

Dem

on

str

at

or

(1ππ ππ)

(2π

/ 4

π)

π /

4π

)π

/ 4

π)

π /

4π

)

construction phase

MIL

ES

TO

NE

S

Mo

Us

ign

ed

(Co

ns

. a

gr.

S

ign

ed

)

Data collection at SP2

and partly at FAIR

Exp a-1 a-2g All others (+ new)

. Furthermore, a time schedule with milestones should be presented.

WO

RK

Common (AD, Neutron Det., PARIS, GASPARD,…) working group for synergy inmechanical design, electronics,..SP2 PP FP7 could be a goodplatform for that

RFD

PARIS

AD

NW

General conclusion:

PARIS (SPIRAL2 based detector)is worth to be considered as additionaldetector for some ofHISPEC/DESPEC experiments

www.paris.w.pl