1 DR 10 Hz Repetition Rate S. Guiducci (LNF) AD&I webex, 23 June 2010.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Friday 28 th April Review of the aims and recommendations from the workshop L. Rinolfi.
Advertisements

SuperB Damping Rings M. Biagini, LNF-INFN P. Raimondi, SLAC/INFN A. Wolski, Cockroft Institute, UK SuperB III Workshop, SLAC, June 2006.
SuperB and the ILC Damping Rings Andy Wolski University of Liverpool/Cockcroft Institute 27 April, 2006.
First approach to the SuperB Rings M. Biagini, LNF-INFN April 26th, 2006 UK SuperB Meeting, Daresbury.
Damping Rings Baseline Lattice Choice ILC DR Technical Baseline Review Frascati, July 7, 2011 Mark Palmer Cornell University.
DR km DTC Lattice 7 July 2011 D. Rubin. DTC01 layout 1.Circumference = m, 712m straights 2.~ 6 phase trombone cells 3.54 – 1.92m long wigglers.
Global Design Effort - CFS Baseline Assessment Workshop 2 - SLAC Reduced Bunch Number 1 BASELINE ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP 2 CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES.
2011 Damping Rings Lattice Evaluation Mark Palmer Cornell University March 8, 2011.
45 th ICFA Beam Dynamic Workshop June 8–12, 2009, Cornell University, Ithaca New York Jim Crittenden Cornell Laboratory for Accelerator-Based Sciences.
Preliminary design of SPPC RF system Jianping DAI 2015/09/11 The CEPC-SppC Study Group Meeting, Sept. 11~12, IHEP.
Proposed machine parameters Andrei Seryi July 23, 2010.
Comparison between NLC, ILC and CLIC Damping Ring parameters May 8 th, 2007 CLIC Parameter working group Y. Papaphilippou.
Update of 3.2 km ILC DR design (DMC3) Dou Wang, Jie Gao, Gang Xu, Yiwei Wang (IHEP) IWLC2010 Monday 18 October - Friday 22 October 2010 Geneva, Switzerland.
Beam dynamics on damping rings and beam-beam interaction Dec 포항 가속기 연구소 김 은 산.
1Matthias LiepeAugust 2, 2007 LLRF for the ERL Matthias Liepe.
SB2009/ Low energy running for ILC International Workshop on Linear Colliders 2010 Andrei Seryi John Adams Institute 19 October 2010.
RF system issues due to pulsed beam in ILC DR October 20, Belomestnykh, RF for pulsed beam ILC DR, IWLC2010 S. Belomestnykh Cornell University.
Summary of TDR Cost Reviews at KILC-12 G. Dugan KILC-12 4/26/12.
DR 3.2 km Lattice Requirements Webex meeting 10 January 2011.
Positron Source Relocation Damping 10Hz S. Guiducci (INFN-LNF) BAW2, SLAC Tuesday 18 January 2011.
Aug 23, 2006 Half Current Option: Impact on Linac Cost Chris Adolphsen With input from Mike Neubauer, Chris Nantista and Tom Peterson.
Overview of Booster PIP II upgrades and plans C.Y. Tan for Proton Source group PIP II Collaboration Meeting 03 June 2014.
Damping Ring Parameters and Interface to Sources S. Guiducci BTR, LNF 7 July 2011.
Optimized CESR-c Wiggler Design Mark Palmer, Jeremy Urban, Gerry Dugan Cornell Laboratory for Accelerator-Based Sciences and Education.
ILC Damping Ring Alternative Lattice Design ( Modified FODO ) ** Yi-Peng Sun *,1,2, Jie Gao 1, Zhi-Yu Guo 2 Wei-Shi Wan 3 1 Institute of High Energy Physics,
Design Optimization of MEIC Ion Linac & Pre-Booster B. Mustapha, Z. Conway, B. Erdelyi and P. Ostroumov ANL & NIU MEIC Collaboration Meeting JLab, October.
1Matthias LiepeAugust 2, 2007 Future Options Matthias Liepe.
10/9/2007 Global Design Effort 1 Optical Matching Device Jeff Gronberg / LLNL October 9, 2007 Positron source KOM - Daresbury This work performed under.
ILC Damping Rings Electron Cloud Working Group Meeting Introduction S. Guiducci (LNF) ECLOUD10, Cornell 13 October
DR Layout Description ILC DR Technical Baseline Review Frascati, July 7, 2011 Mark Palmer Cornell University.
Vacuum System S. Guiducci BTR, LNF 8 July RDR - electron damping ring:
WebEx meeting November 17, 2009 ILC Damping Ring Working Group on Electron Cloud LC e- cloud Working Group November 17, 2009.
2011 Damping Rings Lattice Evaluation WebEx Meeting May 24, 2011 Mark Palmer Cornell University.
LNF Frascati, July 8, 2011 DR Technical Baseline Rev. Global Design Effort 1 DR Technical Baseline Review INFN LNF · Frascati, Italy July 7 and 8, 2011.
2011 Damping Rings Lattice Evaluation Mark Palmer Cornell University March 20, 2011.
Global Design Effort ILC Damping Rings: R&D Plan and Organisation in the Technical Design Phase Andy Wolski University of Liverpool and the Cockcroft Institute,
ILC Damping Rings: Configuration Status and R&D Plans Andy Wolski Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory January 19, 2006.
Damping Ring Specifications S. Guiducci ALCPG11, 20 March 2011.
3 February 2010 ILC Damping Ring electron cloud WG effort Mauro Pivi SLAC on behalf of ILC DR working group on e- cloud ILC DR Webex Meeting Jan 3, 2010.
Parameter scan for the CLIC damping rings July 23rd, 2008 Y. Papaphilippou Thanks to H. Braun, M. Korostelev and D. Schulte.
IntraBeam Scattering Calculation T. Demma, S. Guiducci SuperB Workshop LAL, 17 February 09.
Operation Status of the RF Systems and Taiwan Photon Source
Third ILC Damping Rings R&D Mini-Workshop KEK, Tsukuba, Japan December 2007 Choosing the Baseline Lattice for the Engineering Design Phase Andy Wolski.
ILC DR Lower Horizontal Emittance, preliminary study
ILC - Upgrades Nick Walker – 100th meeting
For Discussion Possible Beam Dynamics Issues in ILC downstream of Damping Ring LCWS2015 K. Kubo.
Auxiliary Positron Source
CLIC Damping ring beam transfer systems
Design Fabrication and Processing Group H. Padamsee
DR Magnets & Power Supply System ILC-ADI Meeting March 14, 2012
High Gradient Cavities: Cost and Operational Considerations
IntraBeam Scattering Calculation
Recent Electron Cloud Studies at CESR and Future Plans
CEPC Injector Damping Ring
The Proposed Conversion of CESR to an ILC Damping Ring Test Facility
ILC 3.2 km DR design based on FODO lattice (DMC3)
M. Biagini, S. Guiducci ECLOUD WG webex meeting December 15, 2009
ILC Cryogenics -- Technical Design Report Planning
ILC 3.2 km DR design based on FODO lattice (DMC3)
ILC Damping Ring electron cloud WG effort
Status of CTC activities for the Damping rings
Barry Barish Paris ICHEP 24-July-10
Session Introduction & Damping Rings Baseline Lattice Decision
ILC - Global Design Effort
ERL Director’s Review Main Linac
Jiquan Guo, Haipeng Wang
Crab Crossing Named #1 common technical risk (p. 6 of the report)
Fanglei Lin JLEIC R&D Meeting, August 4, 2016
3.2 km FODO lattice for 10 Hz operation (DMC4)
JLEIC electron ring with damping wigglers
Presentation transcript:

1 DR 10 Hz Repetition Rate S. Guiducci (LNF) AD&I webex, 23 June 2010

2 Positron emittance damping t/  x ~8 damping times are needed for the vertical emittance 5 Hz   x  26 ms 10 Hz   x  13 ms e+e+

3 Electron emittance damping ~5 damping times are needed for the vertical emittance 5 Hz   x  36 ms 10 Hz   x  18 ms e-e- t/  x The evaluation is done only for the positron ring which is more demanding

4 SB km ring 8 damping times needed to reduce vertical e + emittance 5 Hz   x  26 ms 10 Hz   x  13 ms DR Parameters for positron ring 10 Hz operation Increase wiggler field Reduce wiggler period Double the number of RF cavities

5 Cost related modifications RF voltage 7.5  13.4 MV Beam power 1.9  3.6 MW N. of RF cavities 8  16 Wiggler field 1.6  2.4 T Wiggler period 0.4  0.28 m Wiggler length 2.45  1.72 m N. of wigglers 32  44 Total wig. sect. length 136  176 m SR power per wiggler 40  63 kW

6 Comments on wiggler modifications Some engineering design work is needed Lattice and dynamic aperture tuning SR copper absorbers* (not included in RDR costs) 0.5 m long, 40 kW; with modified wigglers there is space to increase the length to 0.75 m to absorb 60 kW The SR power passing through all modules and continuing downstream to the fist arc dipole is 256 kW. This is expected to by ~ 1.5. A solution is to leave some space for more absorbers Cryogenic load to be reevaluated * O. B. Malyshev, et al. “Mechanical and Vacuum Design of the Wiggler Section of the ILC Damping Rings”, ID: WEPE092, IPAC10

7 DCO4* km ring 8 damping times needed to reduce e + vertical emittance 5 Hz   x  21 ms 10 Hz   x  13 ms DR Parameters for positron ring 10 Hz operation Increase wiggler field Reduce wiggler period Increase the number of RF cavities 18  30 * DCO4 is new baseline after Sendai TILC08 meeting DCO4 has 3 options with different momentum compaction, I used the intermediate one with  c = 1.6e-4

8 Preliminary Costs Costs based on RDR 2007 numbers 50% duty cycle not considered The lower cost for the wigglers is scaled with the wiggler length SR absorbers are not included Extra quadrupoles are not included

9 Preliminary Costs Comparison with SB bunches options 1 or 2 positron rings in the same tunnel

June 23, Alternate 10Hz Cycle DR RF Operation In consultation with Sergey Belomestnykh (Cornell) Normal Operations: –Reactive beam loading is large –Cancelled by appropriate cavity de-tuning –Beam-loaded cavity then represents a matched load for the klystron Issues –With no beam, the cavity is detuned far from resonance –For DR parameters, ~365kW would be required to maintain the voltage in each cavity –This exceeds available power from klystron in our present specification Potential Solutions –Fast Frequency Tuner with either feedforward or feedback system  Tune cavity as beam is injected/extracted Tristan utilizes a piezo tuner on their SCRF cavities CESR cryomodules also equipped with piezos for microphonics (not enough range for large detuning) Requires an R&D effort to implement for this application, but millisecond timescale seems quite reasonable. –Fast Waveguide Tuner Under development at several laboratories, but not presently used in operations Probably not sufficient by itself as ower requirements will still be high May be useful in conjunction with a Fast Frequency Tuner (particularly if frequency tuner has limited range) –Other? Conclusion: Significant R&D will be required for the alternating 10Hz scenario OR a significant cost increase to deal with the additional power overhead June 23, 2010 ILC ADI Meeting Mark Palmer

June 23, Wiggler Photon Stop Issues In consultation with Yulin Li & Xianghong Liu 10 Hz Operation –Higher power load in each wiggler requires adjustments to design –Expect that a technical solution is possible Alternating 10Hz Cycle Operation –Average power load is lower than previous case  no issues for cooling system –Rapid cycling will lead to added thermal stress at the photon absorbing surfaces Some concern about ability of standard tools to model this (optimized for steady state calculations) General recommendation is to provide additional operating margin relative to the steady state yield point Assuming that baseline design is for full duty cycle 10Hz operation, the factor of 2 reduction in average power load likely satisfies the previous recommendation. Conclusion: No serious issues are likely 11 June 23, 2010 ILC ADI MeetingMark Palmer