Transverse polarization: do we need wigglers? M. Koratzinos With valuable input from Alain Blondel TLEP ACC meeting no. 4, 24/3/2014.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Introducing LEP3 zero M. Koratzinos TLEP3 day, 9 January2013.
Advertisements

Beam energy calibration: systematic uncertainties M. Koratzinos FCC-ee (TLEP) Physics Workshop (TLEP8) 28 October 2014.
Point estimation, interval estimation
CESR-c Status CESR Layout - Pretzel, Wigglers, solenoid compensation Performance to date Design parameters Our understanding of shortfall Plans for remediation.
F.Brinker, DESY, July 17 st 2008 Injection to Doris and Petra Fitting the detector in the IP-region Radiation issues Beam optic, Target cell Polarisation.
Prepare DORIS for particle physics again F.Brinker, DESY, March 31 st 2008 Injector chain to Doris and Petra Situation at the IP-region Beam optic Work.
Beam Dynamics Tutorial, L. Rivkin, EPFL & PSI, Prague, September 2014 Synchrotron radiation in LHC: spectrum and dynamics The Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
RUN 11 RHIC MACHINE/EXPERIMENTS MEETING 5 Apr 2011 Agenda: Open.
Beamstrahlung and energy acceptance K. Ohmi (KEK) HF2014, Beijing Oct 9-12, 2014 Thanks to Y. Zhang and D. Shatilov.
1 BIOSTAT 6 - Estimation There are two types of inference: estimation and hypothesis testing; estimation is introduced first. The objective of estimation.
Beijing, Feb 3 rd, % e+ Poalarization 1 Physics with an initial positron polarisation of ≈30% Sabine Riemann (DESY)
1 Flux concentrator for SuperKEKB Kamitani Takuya IWLC October.20.
Alexei Fedotov, 02/02/12 1 Potentials for luminosity improvement for low-energy RHIC (with electron cooling) February 2, 2012.
Alain Blondel TLEP -6 Polarization TLEP Beam Polarization and Energy Calibration Jowett Wenninger Wienands Assmann Koutchouk Placidi Buon Keil.
Luminosity expectations for the first years of CLIC operation CTC MJ.
M. Dugger, February Triplet polarimeter study Michael Dugger* Arizona State University *Work at ASU is supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation.
Separate production cell. Geometry and dimensions If the filling time is much shorter then the accumulation time then maximum of UCN density in the measurement.
Machine development - results and plans – critical results, what’s to be done? R. Assmann 15/07/2011 R. Assmann for the LHC MD coordination team (R. Assmann,
Damping Ring Parameters and Interface to Sources S. Guiducci BTR, LNF 7 July 2011.
Polarization in ELIC Yaroslav Derbenev Center for Advanced Study of Accelerators Jefferson Laboratory EIC Collaboiration Meeting, January 10-12, 2010 Stony.
10 th January rd EuCARD TLEP3 workshop L. Rinolfi Review of the LEP Injector complex L.Rinolfi.
Inputs from GG6 to decisions 2,7,8,15,21,27,34 V.Telnov Aug.24, 2005, Snowmass.
Prospects for RHIC Low-Energy Operations Todd Satogata (W. Fischer, T. Roser, A. Fedotov, N. Tsoupas, M. Brennan, C. Montag, and others) “Can We Discover.
Assessment of Physics, Applications and Construction Issues for the Proposed Magurele Short-Pulse Facility Silviu Olariu National Institute of Physics.
06/2006I.Larin PrimEx Collaboration meeting  0 analysis.
Robert R. Wilson Prize Talk John Peoples April APS Meeting: February 14,
1 RHIC II – Ion Operation Wolfram Fischer RHIC II Workshop, BNL – Working Group: Equation of State 27 April 2005.
Transverse polarization for energy calibration at Z-peak M. Koratzinos With valuable input from Alain Blondel ICFA HF2014, Sunday, 12/10/2014.
Problems of charge compensation in a ring e+e- higgs factory Valery Telnov Budker INP, Novosibirsk 5 rd TLEP3 workshop, FNAL, July 25, 2013.
Please check out: K. Ohmi et al., IPAC2014, THPRI003 & THPRI004 A. Bogomyagkov, E. Levichev, P. Piminov, IPAC2014, THPRI008 Work in progress FCC-ee accelerator.
Choice of circumference, minimum & maximum energy, number of collision points, and target luminosity M. Koratzinos ICFA HF2014, Thursday, 9/10/2014.
RUN 11 RHIC MACHINE/EXPERIMENTS MEETING 22 Mar 2011 Agenda: Open.
A.Variola Frascati SuperB meeting 1 Injector and positron source scheme. A.Variola, O.Dadoun, F Poirier, R.Chehab, P Lepercq, R.Roux, J.Brossard.
MAC meeting (12-13 January 2010) Machine Advisory Committee participants: B.Sharkov (ITEP/FAIR) P.Belochitskii (CERN) S.Ivanov (IHEP, Protvino) M.Steck.
Luminosity at  collider Marco Zanetti (MIT) 1. Intro,  colliders basics Luminosity at  colliders Sapphire simulation Alternative approaches Luminosity.
Positron Source for Linear Collider Wanming Liu 04/11/2013.
M. Koratzinos, Rome, 16/4/2016 Polarization wigglers for FCC-ee (TLEP) and lessons from LEP Mike Koratzinos EuCARD-2 XPOL workshop on Polarization Issues.
Note presentation: Performance limitations of circular colliders: head-on collisions M. Koratzinos TLEP ACC meeting no. 8, 25/8/2014.
Polarization studies for CEPC
Operating IP8 at high luminosity in the HL-LHC era
Electroweak Physics Towards the CDR
Electroweak physics at CEPC
Positron production rate vs incident electron beam energy for a tungsten target
Electroweak Physics Towards the CDR
Topics for the discussion session 05/11/2015
P. Chevtsov for the ELIC Design Team
Injector and positron source scheme. A first evaluation Thanks to O
Status and prospects of VEPP-5 Injection Complex
Auxiliary Positron Source
Beam-beam effects in eRHIC and MeRHIC
Energy calibration issues for FCC-ee I. Koop, BINP, Novosibirsk
Luminosity Optimization for FCC-ee: recent results
Electron Polarization In MEIC
Top-Up Injection for PEP-II and Applications to a Higgs Factory
Intensity Evolution Estimate for LHC
Recent studies on BEPCII longitudinal impedance
Wednesday Morning 8: :30 end of fill study - octupole polarity inversion (Elias, Tatiana, Alexey, Georges, …): Goal: study the effect of the.
CASA Collider Design Review Retreat Other Electron-Ion Colliders: eRHIC, ENC & LHeC Yuhong Zhang February 24, 2010.
ELIC Injector Working Group High-P, high-I source issues (DC)
The Fill Pattern Monitor For the Australian Synchrotron
Why CeC is needed? High luminosity of US future electron-ion collider(EIC) is critical for success of its physics program 2018 NAS Assessment of U.S.-Based.
Tue/Wed 12/ :00 Probe beam back again
Winsorisation for estimates of change
Polarized Positrons in JLEIC
Injection design of CEPC
JLEIC Reaching 140 GeV CM Energy: Concept and Luminosity Estimate
Ion bunch formation options for 400GeV JLEIC
HE-JLEIC: Boosting Luminosity at High Energy
JLEIC Accelerator R&D Meeting
Optimization of JLEIC Integrated Luminosity Without On-Energy Cooling*
Presentation transcript:

Transverse polarization: do we need wigglers? M. Koratzinos With valuable input from Alain Blondel TLEP ACC meeting no. 4, 24/3/2014

Previous episodes Alain gave the foundations in a talk at TLEP6: “Beam Polarization and Energy Calibration” I will here only concentrate on transverse polarization at the Z peak, needed for energy calibration The problem is this: – We need continuous energy calibration from the beginning of physics till the end of the fill – Polarization time is ~200 hours at TLEP (scales as circumference to the third power)

wigglers Alain proposed to solve the problem of long polarization time by introducing wigglers However, wigglers not only decrease the polarization time, they also increase the energy spread that leads to depolarization Alain considered that we can afford to increase the energy spread up to 52MeV Alain used the design and number of wigglers built for LEP: 12 wigglers with a ration between B+ and B- of 6.25

LEP wigglers For TLEP some optimization would be needed Alain says that changing the wiggler parameters “makes little difference” Quick and dirty design, troublesome operationally

A.Blondel TLEP6 polrization 17/10/2013

The problem The problem with the wigglers is that (at least in the current design) when operating, they eat up 21% of the power budget, meaning that our luminosity will be decreased by 21% Is this inevitable?

Degree of polarization Judging from the LEP experience, to achieve a depolarization measurement, 10% polarization is sufficient I believe that with the design of a good polarimeter, we can bring this figure down: a realistic value we can aim at is 5% With the use of wigglers, we can achieve a 5% polarization in 45 minutes and a 10% polarization in 90 minutes

Some more facts about TLEP-Z Strangely, the bunch population at LEP and TLEPZ is the same: 1.8E11 –  I will assume that for depolarization measurements we need bunches with the same number of electrons as normal, colliding, bunches. Beam lifetime is 200mins What is the fillup time? How often do we need to perform depolarization measurements and how many bunches do we need?

Fillup time According to our recent parameter document (EDMS ): – “The required flux of e + and of e - is currently estimated to ≥2x10 12 particles/s for each species.” I have used 2E12 particles/s and a bhabha lifetime of 200 mins. This results in a fill up time at the Z of 28 minutes:

Number of depol. measurements I believe that having 5 depolarization measurements per hour is sufficient (at LEP we had less than 1 depol. measurement per fill) A year’s running would give us a sample of more than 10,000 measurements – it might even be an overkill We only need to destroy 1 bunch per depolarization measurement We need to measure electrons and positrons separately The bunches to be depolarized should not collide

Strategy Therefore, a strategy emerges: We start with a fresh machine and 100 bunches per species only. These will be our depolarizing bunches, they will not be colliding. for 15 mins we operate the wigglers at full blast After 15 minutes we start injecting the normal beam and the machine is full in 30 minites. During this period we operate the wigglers at full blast. Now, 45 minutes has passed since the injection of the depolarizing bunches, so they have a polarization of 5% We switch the wigglers off We start physics and start depolarizing measurements every 12 minutes, meaning that we use up 5 bunches per hour. Every time we depolarize a bunch, we replace it with a fresh bunch (non colliding) which has no polarization. By the time we have used up bunch 100, 20 hours have passed, and our oldest “fresh” bunch has attained a polarization level of 10%

What about TLEP-W? Calculations show that polarization will be available at the W pair running (this was not the case at LEP) Polarization time is 9 hours, so 5% is achieved in 30 minutes and 10% in 60 minutes No wigglers are needed for TLEP-W running, as natular polarization time is lower than the polarization time using wigglers at TLEP-Z

Conclusions Wigglers are necessary for the Z running Wigglers need only be used at the initial period of every fill and can be switched off later Therefore, wigglers will not be eating up our power budget which can be all used to deliver luminosity