1. 14.10.2008 CLIC Workshop, CERN Marc Ross, ILC Global Design Effort 1 Content: Reason ILC - PM were there – introductory plenary Tolerances and ‘CTF4’. Cfs activity linkage to ILC. Diagnostics. Meetings with Clic managers (including Tor, chair of Clic Advisory – ACE). –the sentences - should be published Thursday. Pac statements.

2. 14.10.2008 CLIC Workshop, CERN 2 CLIC/ILC Collaboration Report: Marc Ross (Fermilab); for Nick Walker, Akira Yamamoto Project Managers International Linear Collider – Global Design Effort

3. 14.10.2008 CLIC Workshop, CERN Marc Ross, ILC Global Design Effort 3 CLIC – ILC Collaboration Strategy What can ILC bring to CLIC? –Use the same cost basis. – develop a credible comparison –(ILC will help in the costing of CLIC) And CLIC to ILC: –CERN & CLIC-collaboration experts to work with ILC team on common design issues The credibility of each project within our community will be facilitated through communication

4. J.P.DelahayeTILC08: 06/ 03/ 08 Marc Ross, ILC4 Conclusion CLIC/ILC collaboration on subjects with strong synergy Win –Win for both studies and for HEP Ambitious but realistic and practical approach –starting on limited number of subjects –conveners to define plan of (limited) actions Most efficient use of limited resources Provide credibility to Linear Collider Community by: –mutual understanding of status, advantages, issues of both tech. –responsible preparation of the future comparison of possible options for HEP with agreed pro&cons and criteria Collaborative Competition and / or Competitive Collaboration First Report to the community – TILC08 March 2008

5. 14.10.2008 CLIC Workshop, CERN Marc Ross, ILC Global Design Effort 5 CLIC – ILC Collaboration Chronology November 2007 – Barish / Aymar meet and agree on basis First plenary meeting: February 8, 2008 –Working Group Definition and convener assignment (typically 2+2 conveners/group) Second plenary meeting: May 13, 2008 –Working Group Mandates – what should be accomplished prior to the fall project meetings (CLIC 08 / ILC 08 workshops) Third plenary meeting – teleconference: September 19, 2008 –Progress reports from each group Collaboration website: –http://clic-study.web.cern.ch/CLIC- Study/CLIC_ILC_Collab_Mtg/Index.htm (Thank you Sonia)http://clic-study.web.cern.ch/CLIC- Study/CLIC_ILC_Collab_Mtg/Index.htm

6. 14.10.2008 CLIC Workshop, CERN Marc Ross, ILC Global Design Effort 6 Five (initial) Working Groups: Civil Engineering and Conventional Facilities (CFS) Beam Delivery and Machine Detector Interface Detector and Physics Cost and Schedule Beam Dynamics Each is ‘mapped’ into a CLIC08 Working Group – –Each CLIC08 WG will have collaboration reporting in their agenda –(CFS and Cost and Schedule will meet in the ‘Technical Issues, Integration & Cost’ Working Group)

7. 14.10.2008 CLIC Workshop, CERN Marc Ross, ILC Global Design Effort 7 Two new Working Groups planned: Damping Rings Positron Generation Overlap criteria readily met (“ subjects with strong synergy ”) Conveners to be named soon (work already started)

8. 14.10.2008 CLIC Workshop, CERN Marc Ross, ILC Global Design Effort 8 ILC08 Chicago, November 16-20, 2008 Presentation of Collaboration WG activities to GDE Convener instructions: “It is important that we maintain a visible component in the working groups to address those identified issues of common interest between the CLIC and ILC collaborations. Specifically the ILC08 WG (where appropriate) should include in their schedule some block to discuss the collaborative work. It is expected that a brief progress report on CLIC-ILC collaboration activities will form part of the close-out summary. “The ILC-CLIC collaboration is currently focused on four working groups (five including Physics and Detectors) which have identified points of contact. As conveners of the ILC08 WGs, please make sure the relevant people are included in the planning discussions for this part of the programme.”

9. 14.10.2008 CLIC Workshop, CERN Marc Ross, ILC Global Design Effort 9 Review of Mandates (CFS): both groups will work together on areas of mutual interest for both projects, including : Civil Engineering Studies –Optimisation of Tunnel and Shaft diameters, distance between shafts (linked to safety) –Overall layout of the machine and interaction region infrastructure –Shallow site v Deep Tunnel Option –Tunnel –Single Tunnel v Double – Safety issues such as emergency egress –Environmental issues Other Infrastructure –Cooling Water ? –Power Distribution –Air Handling –Transport Issues – Radiation simulations / shielding ?

10. 14.10.2008 CLIC Workshop, CERN Marc Ross, ILC Global Design Effort 10 Review of Mandates (BDS): provides a forum where those technically responsible –for the beam delivery systems and –for the issues at the interface between the machines and experiments from the ILC and CLIC projects can meet and discuss issues of mutual interest. The subjects treated cover everything of common importance to the machines and experiments and includes, –(but not limited to), –machine performance for the experiments, –design and integration of the beam delivery system and –corresponding interaction regions and experimental areas, –experimental beampipes and the vacuum, radiation shielding and monitoring, –collimation system, –beam instrumentation, –luminosity and background measurement and monitoring, –mechanical supports and stabilisation, –design of the near-beam forward detectors, –data exchange and common safety issues.

11. 14.10.2008 CLIC Workshop, CERN Marc Ross, ILC Global Design Effort 11

12. 14.10.2008 CLIC Workshop, CERN Marc Ross, ILC Global Design Effort 12 Review of Mandates: (Cost and Schedule)

13. 14.10.2008 CLIC Workshop, CERN Marc Ross, ILC Global Design Effort 13 Review of Mandates: (Beam Dynamics) The working group should foster the exploitation of synergy between the ILC and CLIC beam physics studies. It should promote common meetings, standards, codes and studies.

14. 14.10.2008 CLIC Workshop, CERN Marc Ross, ILC Global Design Effort 14 Collaboration issues Note the nature of the collaboration: –What does each team bring? –What does each expect? –ILC to CLIC: Use the same cost basis. (ILC could even help in the costing of CLIC.) –CLIC to ILC: CERN expertise helpful in design studies Work a practical balance into the mandates

15. 14.10.2008 CLIC Workshop, CERN Marc Ross, ILC Global Design Effort 15 Test Facility after CTF3 Hans Braun

16. 16 A next facility towards CLIC Footprint 100 m TBA DBA 0.48 GeV, 4.2 A DL CR2 CR1 Compression 2 x 3 x 4 DB Turn around 0.48 GeV, 101 A 6.5 GeV, 1.2 A 0.2 GeV, 101 A CALIFES type injector 0.2 GeV, 1.2 A

17. 17 Drive Beam Accelerator DBA – Nominal CLIC DBA injector (thermionic or Photo injector, depending on results of PHIN tests) – 2 nominal accelerator modules equipped with nominal 33 MW, 1 GHz, 50 Hz, 140  s pulse length klystrons development of nominal drive beam klystrons & modulators required – 58 nominal accelerator modules with reduced pulse length klystrons (6  s) Total length ≈ 200 m, nominal 4.2 A beam final energy 0.48 GeV instead of 2.4 GeV for CLIC 6  s pulse length instead of 140  s for economy, sufficient to produce one nominal bunch train final energy 0.48 GeV instead of 2.4 GeV for CLIC 6  s pulse length instead of 140  s, for economy, sufficient to produce one nominal bunch train all hardware nominal and re-usable for CLIC !

18. 18 Delay Loop + Combiner Rings + Turnaround – Nominal CLIC Delay Loop, 2 x current multiplication – Nominal CLIC combiner ring 1, 3 x current multiplication – Nominal CLIC combiner ring 2, 4 x current multiplication – Nominal DB turnaround with bunch compressor Total beamline length ≈800 m, all components nominal and re-usable for CLIC Magnets operate at 1/5 of nominal strength.

19. 19 all components nominal and re-usable for CLIC Two Beam Demonstrator - 46 nominal CLIC modules (type 1, 6 accelerating structures,1 main beam quadrupole, 3 power extraction structures and 2 drive beam quadrupoles per modules – Drivebeam corresponds to 1/10 of a nominal decelerator sector with deceleration to nominal final energy of T=0.24 GeV – Main beam gets a total acceleration of 6.3 GeV – Califes type 0.2 GeV injector, (but with nominal CLIC main beam current 1.2 A and 156 ns pulselength) – total length ≈120 m

20. 20 CLIC 3 TeV e + main linac e - main linac, 12 GHz, 100 MV/m, 21.1 km BC2 decelerator, 24 sectors of 878 m IP BDS 2.75 km BDS 2.75 km 48.4 km drive beam accelerator 2.38 GeV, 1.0 GHz combiner rings Circumferences delay loop 72.4 m CR1 144.8 m CR2 434.3 m CR1 CR2 delay loop 326 klystrons 33 MW, 139  s 1 km CR2 delay loop drive beam accelerator 2.38 GeV, 1.0 GHz 326 klystrons 33 MW, 139  s 1 km CR1 TA R=120m TA R=120m 245m booster linac, 9 GeV BC1 e + DR 365m e + PDR 365m e - DR 365m e - PDR 365m linac, 2.2 GeV e + injector, 0.2 GeV e - injector, 0.2 GeV Demonstrate

21. 21 Next facility towards CLIC Rational Creates drive beam train nominal for everything but energy (0.48GeV instead of 2.4 GeV) Creates drive beam train nominal for everything but energy (0.48GeV instead of 2.4 GeV) Demonstrates nominal DBA injector with all parameters Demonstrates nominal DBA injector with all parameters Demonstrates nominal DBA module with klystron and modulator with all parameters Demonstrates nominal DBA module with klystron and modulator with all parameters Demonstrates two beam acceleration over significant distance with fully nominal modules Demonstrates two beam acceleration over significant distance with fully nominal modules Forces pre-series production of all mass produced components→ Industrialization Forces pre-series production of all mass produced components→ Industrialization Well suited to create confidence in CLIC technology Well suited to create confidence in CLIC technology All hardware investment is re-usable for real CLIC All hardware investment is re-usable for real CLICProblems Combiner ring beam dynamics more difficult than in real CLIC (like in CTF3) Combiner ring beam dynamics more difficult than in real CLIC (like in CTF3) Expensive (but re-usable) Expensive (but re-usable) No obvious use of 6.5 GeV main beam but for testing (injector for proto damping ring, FEL ? ) No obvious use of 6.5 GeV main beam but for testing (injector for proto damping ring, FEL ? )

22. 22 Where can we put it ? Could fit in one of the big experiment halls at CERN Problem: They are all in use Can be put in final location Problem: immediate cost and time delays

23. 23 Tentative schedule for CLIC R&D 2010-2016

24. 24 More issues Demonstration of injector parameters (polarised e -, unpolarised and polarised e + ) Demonstration of injector parameters (polarised e -, unpolarised and polarised e + ) Demonstration low emittance generation (ATF, SR sources, …) Demonstration low emittance generation (ATF, SR sources, …) Demonstration low emittance transport (SLC heritage, Linac driven FEL’s, …) Demonstration low emittance transport (SLC heritage, Linac driven FEL’s, …) Demonstration CLIC final focus parameters and stability (ATF2, …) Demonstration CLIC final focus parameters and stability (ATF2, …) Integration of R&D program with other relevant facilities around the world (see Nobu’s talk) Integration of R&D program with other relevant facilities around the world (see Nobu’s talk) Name for next facility Name for next facility … … You are welcome to discuss your ideas in the working groups !

25. 14.10.2008 CLIC Workshop, CERN Marc Ross, ILC Global Design Effort 25 The 2-beam CLIC module Germana Riddone

26. CLIC08 - Module layout and requirements, GR, 15.10.2008 26 Module with tank configuration Collaboration with Dubna-JIRN, CEA-Saclay, HIP Configuration #1 CLIC08 - Module layout and requirements, GR, 15.10.2008 26

27. CLIC08 - Module layout and requirements, GR, 15.10.2008 27 Module with sealed structure configuration Configuration #2 CLIC08 - Module layout and requirements, GR, 15.10.2008 27 Collaboration with Dubna-JIRN, CEA-Saclay, HIP

28. CLIC08 - Module layout and requirements, GR, 15.10.2008 28 Main technical requirements Structure fabrication and assembly (CERN, HIP, CEA) –Shape accuracy for acc. structures: 5  m –Shape accuracy for PETS: 30  m Alignment/supporting system (CERN, HIP, DUBNA, NIKHEF): possibility to align separately main beam and drive beam independently –Main beam Accelerating structures on girders (cradles mechanically attached to a girder and linked by rods to the adjacent one): alignment system integration Main beam quadrupole on dedicated supports: stabilization and alignment system integration –Drive beam PETS and quadrupoles on the same girders Alignment system integration Tolerances for pre-alignment –accelerating structure pre-alignment transverse tolerance 14  m at 1  –PETS pre-alignment transverse tolerance 30  m at 1  –quadrupole pre-alignment transverse tolerance 17  m at 1s CLIC08 - Module layout and requirements, GR, 15.10.2008 28

29. CLIC08 - Module layout and requirements, GR, 15.10.2008 29 CLIC08 - Module layout and requirements, GR, 15.10.2008 29 Main technical requirements Stabilization system (CERN, LAPP, SLAC, Monalisa, DESY, CEA-IRFU/SIS,..) –1.3 nm at 1 Hz in vertical direction –14 nm at 1 Hz in horizontal direction Vacuum system –5.10 -9 mbar for main beam (simulation under way to confirm the requirement); –dynamics of the H 2 O pumping in limited conductance systems must be better understood: an experimental set-up is being implemented to study H20 pumping dynamics Cooling system (CERN, HIP, WUT) Dissipated power: –AS: 600 W –PETS: 110 W –7.7 kW for a module Most stringent requirement comes from accelerating structures Different operation modes to be taken into account with different thermal loads All these systems have to be studied taking into account acceleration environment and tunnel integration

30. CLIC08 - Module layout and requirements, GR, 15.10.2008 30 CLIC08 - Module layout and requirements, GR, 15.10.2008 30 Conclusions The CLIC study is carrying out a number of specialized development programs of subsystems such as high-power rf structure and micron precision alignment, and in parallel the specification for the CLIC module sub-systems is being finalized. Module design and integration have to be studied for different configurations, identifying thus areas needing dedicated study and design. Potential advantages and drawbacks are being evaluated for each configuration. Important aspects of cost are raised and basic parameters provided for other areas of the study. The module study is important as it raises feasibility issues and provides basic parameters for other areas of the CLIC study  synergy with several other working groups, such as beam physics, stabilization, CES, cost and schedule,.. Integration of the systems in terms of space reservation has been done for all the module types and detailed design started for the main systems, such vacuum, cooling, alignment, stabilisation…  work from collaborations is indispensable and highly appreciated CLIC module in CLEX from 2010 –Test/CLIC modules –String of modules

31. 14.10.2008 CLIC Workshop, CERN Marc Ross, ILC Global Design Effort 31 Beam Instrumentation Thibault LeFevre

32. 14.10.2008 CLIC Workshop, CERN 32 CLIC 08 Instrumentation requirements Feasibility issues to be studied for the CDR - Need to study the Machine Protection System for both the Drive and Main beams and to develop a Beam loss monitoring system along the CLIC linac (both beams) - Very tight requirements for measuring micrometer beam size, 40-75microns short bunch length and beam position with a 50nm resolution, (achievable in principle) - Reliability and availability of roughly 5000 high resolution (50nm) BPMs and 150000 wake field monitors with 5  m resolution - Impact on performance : Does the tuning procedure require all instruments to work simultaneously ? - Industrial series production : study the Impact on cost - Beam synchronization implies a 0.1deg at 12GHz phase measurement with an adequate feed-forward system and a stability of the Drive Beam energy and intensity of 3.10 -5

33. 14.10.2008 CLIC Workshop, CERN Marc Ross, ILC Global Design Effort 33 ILC / CLIC management meeting Joint Statements Additional working groups …

34. Thursday, Nov 13 Joint statements on the development of CLIC and ILC