Beam Transport for MW Class FEL Drivers D. Douglas & G. Biallas Jefferson Lab.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Matching Injector To Linac. Caveats This is all loose and fuzzy – sort of religion We dont have real tight control over and knowledge of the machine –
Advertisements

The JLab IR/UV FEL Driver D. Douglas for the JLab FEL anarcho-syndicalist commune.
Beam-based Measurements of HOMs in the HTC Adam Bartnik for ERL Team, Daniel Hall, John Dobbins, Mike Billing, Matthias Liepe, Ivan Bazarov.
Beam Dynamics in MeRHIC Yue Hao On behalf of MeRHIC/eRHIC working group.
Beam Transport for MW Class FEL Drivers D. Douglas Jefferson Lab.
Driver Accelerator Physics and Design D. Douglas, S. Benson, G. Krafft, R. Li, L. Merminga, B. Yunn.
ILC Accelerator School Kyungpook National University
Page 1 Collider Review Retreat February 24, 2010 Mike Spata February 24, 2010 Collider Review Retreat International Linear Collider.
1 Bates XFEL Linac and Bunch Compressor Dynamics 1. Linac Layout and General Beam Parameter 2. Bunch Compressor –System Details (RF, Magnet Chicane) –Linear.
Longitudinal Matching, or How to move things around by a hairs-width at the speed of light….
Bunch compressors ILC Accelerator School May Eun-San Kim Kyungpook National University.
1 ILC Bunch compressor Damping ring ILC Summer School August Eun-San Kim KNU.
Linear Collider Bunch Compressors Andy Wolski Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory USPAS Santa Barbara, June 2003.
Chris Tennant Jefferson Laboratory March 15, 2013 “Workshop to Explore Physics Opportunities with Intense, Polarized Electron Beams up to 300 MeV”
Driver Accelerator Design D. Douglas, G. Krafft, R. Li, L. Merminga, B. Yunn.
SuperB and the ILC Damping Rings Andy Wolski University of Liverpool/Cockcroft Institute 27 April, 2006.
ERHIC Main Linac Design E. Pozdeyev + eRHIC team BNL.
Aperture Considerations in the FEL Upgrade Accepted design process –generate design  known –set aperture = N  + W N typically 4 to 6 W is “beam handling.
July 22, 2005Modeling1 Modeling CESR-c D. Rubin. July 22, 2005Modeling2 Simulation Comparison of simulation results with measurements Simulated Dependence.
LHeC Test Facility Meeting
Thomas Roser RHIC Open Planning Meeting December 3-4, 2003 RHIC II machine plans Electron cooling at RHIC Luminosity upgrade parameters.
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility 1 of 20 Distribution State A “Direct” Injection D. Douglas, C. Tennant, P. Evtushenko JLab.
Preliminary design of SPPC RF system Jianping DAI 2015/09/11 The CEPC-SppC Study Group Meeting, Sept. 11~12, IHEP.
Longitudinal transfer function a.k.a. (M 55 ) measurements at the JLab FEL Pavel Evtushenko, JLab  Jlab IR/UV upgrade longitudinal phase space evolution.
The Overview of the ILC RTML Bunch Compressor Design Sergei Seletskiy LCWS 13 November, 2012.
Proton Driver: Status and Plans C.R. Prior ASTeC Intense Beams Group, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.
Simulation of direct space charge in Booster by using MAD program Y.Alexahin, A.Drozhdin, N.Kazarinov.
CASA Collider Design Review Retreat HERA The Only Lepton-Hadron Collider Ever Been Built Worldwide Yuhong Zhang February 24, 2010.
Design Requirements/Issues Source/Injector Performance -successful run of 135 pC -DC photocathode gun: cathode lifetime >600 C; GaAs wafer > 2 kC Delivery.
Overview of ERL MEIC Cooler Design Studies S.V. Benson, Y. Derbenev, D.R. Douglas, F. Hannon, F. Marhauser, R. A Rimmer, C.D. Tennant, H. Zhang, H. Wang,
FLASH II. The results from FLASH II tests Sven Ackermann FEL seminar Hamburg, April 23 th, 2013.
SRF Requirements and Challenges for ERL-Based Light Sources Ali Nassiri Advanced Photon Source Argonne National Laboratory 2 nd Argonne – Fermilab Collaboration.
Machine Protection at the 1MW CEBAF Electron Accelerator and Free Electron Laser Facility Kelly Mahoney Presented at the Workshop for.
Optics considerations for ERL test facilities Bruno Muratori ASTeC Daresbury Laboratory (M. Bowler, C. Gerth, F. Hannon, H. Owen, B. Shepherd, S. Smith,
ERHIC design status V.Ptitsyn for the eRHIC design team.
Accelerator Science and Technology Centre Extended ALICE Injector J.W. McKenzie, B.D. Muratori, Y.M. Saveliev STFC Daresbury Laboratory,
“The WBS 3 Talk” Scope of work: beam physics support for –injector –IR Demo analysis for upgrade guidance –upgrade design and analysis (specification &
February 5, 2005D. Rubin - Cornell1 CESR-c Status -Operations/Luminosity -Machine studies -Simulation and modeling -4.1GeV.
The Introduction to CSNS Accelerators Oct. 5, 2010 Sheng Wang AP group, Accelerator Centre,IHEP, CAS.
Beam-beam Simulation at eRHIC Yue Hao Collider-Accelerator Department Brookhaven National Laboratory July 29, 2010 EIC Meeting at The Catholic University.
ICFA Workshop on Future Light Source, FLS2012 M. Shimada A), T. Miyajima A), N. Nakamura A), Y. Kobayashi A), K. Harada A), S. Sakanaka A), R. Hajima B)
Operated by the Southeastern Universities Research Association for the U.S. Depart. Of Energy Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Alex Bogacz,
T. Atkinson*, A. Matveenko, A. Bondarenko, Y. Petenev Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie The Femto-Science Factory: A Multi-turn ERL.
Overview of long pulse experiments at NML Nikolay Solyak PXIE Program Review January 16-17, PXIE Review, N.Solyak E.Harms, S. Nagaitsev, B. Chase,
Operated by the Southeastern Universities Research Association for the U.S. Depart. Of Energy Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Alex Bogacz,
Operated by JSA for the U.S. Department of Energy Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Alex Bogacz Status and Plans for Linac and RLAs.
Operated by JSA for the U.S. Department of Energy Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Alex Bogacz 1 Status of Baseline Linac and RLAs Design.
Operated by JSA for the U.S. Department of Energy Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Alex Bogacz IDS- NF Acceleration Meeting, Jefferson Lab,
Operated by JSA for the U.S. Department of Energy Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Alex Bogacz NuFact’08, Valencia, Spain, July 4, 2008 Acceleration.
Operated by JSA for the U.S. Department of Energy Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Alex Bogacz 1 Recirculating Linac Acceleration  End-to-end.
Beam Transport for MW Class FEL Drivers D. Douglas Jefferson Lab.
ESLS Workshop Nov 2015 MAX IV 3 GeV Ring Commissioning Pedro F. Tavares & Åke Andersson, on behalf of the whole MAX IV team.
Svb[General files ‘01/Presentations]PAC 10 kW laser input.ppt Operated by the Southeastern Universities Research Association for the U.S. Dept. of Energy.
Preservation of Magnetized Beam Quality in a Non-Isochronous Bend
Frank Stulle, ILC LET Beam Dynamics Meeting CLIC Main Beam RTML - Overview - Comparison to ILC RTML - Status / Outlook.
Beam-beam effects in eRHIC and MeRHIC
Coupling Correction at the Australian Synchrotron
Joint Accelerator Research JGU & HZB
Update of CLIC accelerating structure design
CASA Collider Design Review Retreat Other Electron-Ion Colliders: eRHIC, ENC & LHeC Yuhong Zhang February 24, 2010.
R. Bartolini Diamond Light Source Ltd
Analysis of Multi-Turn ERLs for X-ray Sources
LHC (SSC) Byung Yunn CASA.
ERL EIC Workshop | Jefferson Laboratory | November 2, 2018
MEBT1&2 design study for C-ADS
– Overview Alex Bogacz JLAB, Aug. 14, 2017.
Physics 417/517 Introduction to Particle Accelerator Physics
RF Issues in Energy Recovery Linacs
CEPC SRF Parameters (100 km Main Ring)
12 Steps to a Cooler Design
Presentation transcript:

Beam Transport for MW Class FEL Drivers D. Douglas & G. Biallas Jefferson Lab

System Paradigm (Prejudice, Obsession) Low peak, high average power FEL driven by SRF ERL it’s elegant it’s in my comfort zone: it’s what I know & like it might just work nobody’s publicly admitted to producing kW-level CW average power with anything else (yet) Consider me the King’s Fool: I will tell you the truth (hopefully with humor). You may ignor it, avoid it, or use it. You may smack me as you will, but it will be the truth…

Machine Concept 100 MeV  0.5 A  P beam ~50 MW  FEL ~2 %  P FEL ~ 1 MW SRF linac wiggler/optical cavity dump injector here there be dragons…

Examples (the usual suspects) JLab IR Demo FEL 50 MeV  5 mA = 0.25 MW  FEL ~ 0.8% P FEL = MW footprint: 45 m  6 m JLab IR Upgrade FEL 150 MeV  10 mA = 1.5 MW  FEL ~1% P FEL = MW footprint: 65 m  6 m These systems provide guidance for design of higher power devices

Issues/Requirements Management of full 6-d phase space from source to FEL, from FEL to dump Halo management Suppression/control of instabilities and other collective effects Beam quality preservation

Phase Space Management Transverse –include RF focusing effects –keep envelopes small –may need to select/control phase advances to suppress instabilities –CSR management Longitudinal –accelerate long bunch to avoid instabilities; compress length just before wiggler –energy compress during energy recovery –typically must compensate RF waveform curvature (both in bunch length and energy compression) either magnetic or harmonic RF effective; one or other may be help in packaging system –Note: can’t energy recover even harmonic RF (avoid sawtooth waveforms!) –Note: unless you do something special to waveform, must use opposite signs of compaction to compress bunch length and energy (or recover more/less than 180 o apart in RF phase) Status: phase space management is straightforward, but to date has required tunable system (variable quads, sextupoles)

Halo Management Halo is likely a major limitation to very high powers –halo generation: complex topic poorly understood by ordinary mortals, and thus largely ignored by machine designers (like me) –halo likely largely formed in front end –chunks of it scrape off and melt stuff, irradiate things and make life generally unpleasant. Need well less than 1  A loss. Current loss is worse for big beam envelopes (beam large, lattice sensitive), small apertures, high currents Experience in CEBAF, IR Demo, CEBAF-ER suggests C~10 -6, so in ~1 A machine need aperture larger than beam envelope (!!??) to limit losses to 1  A. Status: unsolved problem, under study - but only at most rudimentary level and at low powers (signal to noise – core beam swamps diagnostic at few mA). Much work needed!

Instabilities & Collective Effects Wakes –keep bunch long until you need it short –shield components CSR –same approach – don’t compress until you need to, in fact, generalize to say… –keep at least some bunch dimensions well beyond coherence length (so if its short, make it a pancake – very wide & high, like in IR Demo) –impact smaller at larger emittance & emittance spec loose for IR FELs, so not as critical as in UV, X FEL

Instabilities & Collective Effects BBU/HOM –HOM suppression by proper SRF system design (milestone 43 – “then a miracle occurs”) –feedback stabilization –suppression supported by proper choice of betatron phase non-zero chromaticity may help - phase decoherence across large momentum spread bunch decorrelates betatron response to HOM kicks –need to worry about power deposition from propagating modes!!! Status: –phenomina are pretty well understood & probably manageable –further measurements (esp. CSR, BBU, propagating HOM) and benchmarking of codes needed expect to see BBU when 3 rd module installed in Upgrade (rich HOM spectrum, implying low threshold), will be able to more carefully benchmark theory & simulation learn how to build effective feedback systems. –work on HOM management, feedback, and transport system design needed before very high powers will be achieved motivates move toward lower frequency structures with fewer cells effect of power deposition from propagating modes is not well understood at high powers

Beam Quality Preservation Be sure to suppress collective effects (CSR, wakes) –make bunch short only where it needs to be short –shielded beamline components –avoid overly strong bending, focusing Control magnitude & impact of errors on beam –magnetic field inhomogeneities have transverse and longitudinal emittance dilution effects (  B/B generates  x’ error, couples to (x,x’) through M 12 and M 22 ; couples to (  RF,E) through M 52 ) Status –probably understand magnetostatic effects and seem to be able to control them (IR Demo, IR Upgrade, CEBAF-ER all show well-defined beam and rational beam behavior) but need to carefully spec out system components –learning about collective effects wakes CSR BBU space charge – may become issue as bunch charge increases

Developing the Technology probably won’t successfully run initial high power (100+ kW) FELs without a tunable driver accelerator probably will be able to run offspring high power systems with a “precast” compact driver – particularly if you commission using a blue-tip wrench (recut pole-pieces, move stuff around) suggests that FEL and driver evolve along matrixed developmental tracks –have a separate operationally flexible & tunable “facility testbed driver” for each generation of FEL (10 kW (exists), 100 kW, 1 MW). When it works, move FEL to a deployable “generational field driver” –reduce flexibility of each subsequent generational driver (compact 100 kW, very compact 1 MW) –allows separate, controlled development of source, driver accelerator, FEL, and system integration/packaging process

Example System “Family Tree” JLab 10 kW driver & FEL upgraded 10 kW “facility driver” & 100 kW FEL upgraded 100 kW facility driver & 1 MW FEL 100 kW “field driver” & FEL MW field driver & FEL upgrade driver and FEL migrate FEL upgrade FEL migrate FEL upgrade driver

Technology Choices Lower RF frequency with fewer cells –“better” HOM spectrum & impedances –bigger apertures –requires lower compaction –allows use of harmonic RF correction of RF waveform simplifies magnetic transport –potential for higher temp. operation (4 K o ) magnets: electromagnetic for facility driver, PM for field drivers

The “Minimalist” Machine Parameters E injection ~7 MeV  0.5 A (500 MHz, 1 nC)  P injection ~ 3.5 MW E full ~100 MeV  0.5 A  P accel ~ 46.5 MW, P full ~50 MW  FEL = 2%  P FEL ~1 MW,  p/p out ~ 10% (specifies energy recovery transport) P recovered ~46.5 MW  P dumped = P full - P FEL - P recovered = 2.5 MW  E dumped = P dumped /I = 5 MeV you recover power, not energy! & should figure out something to do with the 2½ MW!

The “Minimalist” Machine Linearized RF –500 MHz fundamental, 1500 MHz 3 rd harmonic SRF 20 MV/m at 500 MHz  5 m active fundamental, probably 8 m real estate 25 MV at 1500 MHz  1 m active harmonic, probably 2 m real estate  10 m of SRF Injection “somehow” –Beam materializes on linac axis miraculously matched to rest of system beam envelopes = linac acceptance (use RF focusing) long bunch/low momentum spread RF curvature corrected Simplistic phase space management –Accelerator serendipitously provides beam transversely matched (via RF focusing) to mirror-bend achromat (with chicane for bunch length compression) nose-pieces to fix T 566 of chicane? –Two quads, properly placed, match beam to wiggler –Two quads, properly placed, match beam to return arc mirror bend, which, through some undetermined feat of parlor magic, provides proper transverse match to cryomodule for energy recovery whilst its compaction sets the longitudinal match Big, nasty dump

Example of MW Class Dumps red: dumps; blue: FEL yeah yeah yeah its not a fair comparison ‘cause they are 6 GeV x 200 mA, but, you get the idea, right? It isn’t easy…

System Concept Major Components: –injector (milestone 43a: a second miracle) –100 MeV linac (4 500 MHz cavities, MHz cavities) –4 K o refrigeration –6 dipoles (10 kG, PM) –4 quads (PM) Integration Overview: –footprint: 13 m  2 m –weight******* lbs –costif you have to ask… injector wiggler location 500/1500 MHz cryomodule dump

Parting Salvo Make it long and skinny. Do not consider a spherical, cubical, conical, ellipsoidal, or otherwise blob-shaped FEL. Its called a “linac” for a reason. And while we’re talking about linacs – do not be delusional about available real estate gradients. –SLAC is a pretty peppy linac and it only gets 17 MV/m (50 GeV/3 km) – pulsed – by SLEDing. Transients and all. And you don’t want the transients… –Don’t expect vastly more from SRF, and don’t expect technology to conform to preconceived notions of usage for shipboard volume It’s front end loaded. The injector is definitely not easy. –required performance is orders of magnitude higher than prior art: combination of current-charge/bunch-longitudinal emittance, desired cathode lifetime,… –footprint –operability (come visit, and see what a real man’s injector is all about!) –integration (how to bring beam into the ERL) What’s with that dump? What do you do with ~5 MeV  0.5 A = 2.5 MW? Quite a dump! Quite a footprint; quite a bit of shielding.