1. The SuperB project M. Biagini on behalf of SuperB Accelerator Team J
The SuperB project M. Biagini on behalf of SuperB Accelerator Team J. Adams Institute, Oxford, UK, July 9th, 2009

2. SuperB Accelerator Team
D. Alesini, M. E. Biagini, A. Bocci, R. Boni, M. Boscolo, A. Clozza, T. Demma, A. Drago, M. Esposito, A. Gallo, S. Guiducci, V. Lollo, G. Mazzitelli, C. Milardi, L. Pellegrino, M. Preger, P. Raimondi, R. Ricci, C. Sanelli, G. Sensolini, M. Serio, F. Sgamma, A. Stecchi, A. Stella, S. Tomassini, C. Vaccarezza, M. Zobov (INFN/LNF, Italy)
K. Bertsche, A. Brachmann, Y. Cai, A. Chao,
DeLira, M. Donald, A. Fisher, D. Kharakh,
Krasnykh, N. Li, D. MacFarlane, Y. Nosochkov,
A. Novokhatski, M. Pivi, J. Seeman, M. Sullivan, U. Wienands, J. Weisend, W. Wittmer, G. Yocky (SLAC, US)
Bogomiagkov, S. Karnaev, I. Koop,
E. Levichev, S. Nikitin, I. Nikolaev, I. Okunev,
P. Piminov, S. Siniatkin, D. Shatilov, V. Smaluk,
P. Vobly (BINP, Russia)
G. Bassi, A. Wolski (Cockroft Institute, UK)
S. Bettoni, D. Quatraro (CERN, Switzerland)
M. Baylac, J. Bonis, R. Chehab, J. DeConto, Gomez, A. Jaremie, G. Lemeur, B. Mercier,
F. Poirier, C. Prevost, C. Rimbault, Tourres,
F. Touze, A. Variola (CNRS, France)
A. Chance, O. Napoly (CEA Saclay, France)
F. Bosi, E. Paoloni (Pisa University, Italy)
CDR (2007)
M. E. Biagini, M. Boscolo, A. Drago, S. Guiducci, M. Preger, P. Raimondi, S. Tomassini,
C. Vaccarezza, M. Zobov (INFN/LNF, Italy)
K. Bertsche, Y. Cai, A. Fisher, S. Heifets,
A. Novokhatski, M.T. Pivi, J. Seeman, M. Sullivan, U. Wienands, W. Wittmer (SLAC, US)
T. Agoh, K. Ohmi, Y. Ohnishi (KEK, Japan),
Koop, S. Nikitin, E. Levichev, P. Piminov,
D. Shatilov (BINP, Russia)
A. Wolski (Cockcroft, UK)
M. Venturini (LBNL, US)
S. Bettoni (CERN, Switzerland)
A. Variola (LAL, France)
E. Paoloni, G. Marchiori (Pisa University, Italy)
TDR ( )

3. The SuperB accelerator
SuperB-Factory is an asymmetric collider that can exploit new promising design approaches:
large Piwinski angle scheme will allow for peak luminosity ³ 1036 cm-2 s-1 well beyond the current state-of-the-art, without a significant increase in beam currents or shorter bunch lengths
“crab waist” sextupoles used for suppression of dangerous resonances
low currents with reduced detector and background problems, and affordable operating costs
polarized electron beam can produce polarized t leptons, opening an entirely new realm of exploration in lepton flavor physics

4. How to increase L to 1036 ?
B-Factories (PEP-II and KEKB) have reached high luminosity (>1034 cm-2 s-1) but, to increase L of ~ 2 orders of magnitude, parameters need to be pushed to uncomfortable limits:
Very high currents HOM in beam pipe
overheating, instabilities
power costs
detector backgrounds increase
Very short bunches (low by*) RF voltage increases
costs, instabilities
Smaller damping times Wiggler magnets needed
Crab cavities for head-on collision
KEKB experience not very positive
Difficult and costly operation

5. Hourglass effect: why short bunches?
Bunch length
by*
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,1
-0,02
-0,01
0,01
s (m)
1 mm
5 mm
2 cm
To squeeze the vertical beam dimensions, and increase Luminosity, by* at IP must be decreased.
This is efficient only if at the same time the bunch length is shortened to sz » by otherwise particles in the head and tail of the bunches will collide at a larger by.

6. A new idea for L increase (LPA & CW)
P.Raimondi, 2° SuperB Workshop, March 2006
P.Raimondi, D.Shatilov, M.Zobov, physics/
Principle: beams more focused at IP + “large” crossing angle (LPA)
+ 2 sextupoles/ring to “twist” the beam waist at the IP (CW)
Ultra-low emittance
Very small b* at IP
Large crossing angle
“Crab Waist” transformation
Small collision area
Lower b* is possible
NO parasitic crossings
NO x-y-betatron resonances
Proved to work at upgraded DAFNE F-Factory

7. Large crossing angle, small x-size
1) Head-on,
Short bunches
2) Large crossing angle,
long bunches
Overlap region sz sx
(1) and (2) have same Luminosity, but (2) has longer bunches and smaller sx
Large Piwinski angle:
F = tg(q)sz/sx
Vertical waist has to be a function of x:
Z = 0 for particles at –sx (- sx/2q at low current)
Z = sx/q for particles at +sx (sx/2q at low current) Y
y waist can be moved
along z with a sextupole
on both sides of IP
at proper phase
“Crab Waist”

8. How it works
Crab sextupoles OFF: Waist line is orthogonal to the axis of other beam
All particles in both beams collide in the minimum by region,
with a net luminosity gain
Crab sextupoles ON: Waist moves parallel to the axis of other beam:
maximum particle density in the overlap between bunches
Plots by E. Paoloni

9. Advantages Horizontal beam-beam tune shift negligible
Easier to make smaller sx than shorter sz
Parasitic collisions become negligible due to higher crossing angle and smaller sx
Larger operational space in tunes plane (less resonance lines)
Higher luminosity with about substantially lower currents without need to shorten bunch lengths:
Beam instabilities are less severe
Manageable HOM heating
Less coherent synchrotron radiation of shorter bunches
Less power consumption

10. Example of x-y resonance suppression in LPA&CW scheme
D.Shatilov’s (BINP)
Tune plan (nx,ny)
Higher luminosity!
Typical case (KEKB, DAFNE):
1. low Piwinski angle F < 1
2. by comparable with sz
Crab Waist On:
1. large Piwinski angle F >> 1
2. by comparable with sx/q

11. Basic concepts (2) SuperB approach
SuperB exploits the LPA&CW alternative approach, with:
Small beams (ILC-DR like)
very low emittances: ILC-DR, SR light sources
Large Piwinsky angle and “crab waist” with a couple of sextupoles/ring
Interaction Region geometry
Currents comparable to present Factories
lower backgrounds, less HOM and instabilities
Requires fine machine tuning

12. The SuperB project
A CDR (450 pages, 320 signatures, 85 Institutions) was published in March 2007, a TDR will be ready by end 2010
SuperB project was scrutinized by an International Review Committee (chair J. Dainton, 9 members)
A Mini-Machine Advisory Committee (chair J. Dorfan, 10 accelerator experts) has met twice (July 2008, April 2009) to examine the feasibility of the accelerator
Both Commettees have endorsed the project for the Physics program and the accelerator feasibility
“Mini-MAC now feels secure in enthusiastically encouraging the SuperB design team to proceed to the TDR phase, with confidence that the design parameters are achievable” (from Mini-MAC Closeout, April 09)

13. SuperB builds on the successes of past accelerators
PEP-II LER stored beam current: 3.2 A in 1722 bunches (4 3.1 GeV and 23 nm, with little Electron Cloud Instability effect on Luminosity
Low emittance lattices designed for ILC damping rings, PETRA-3, NSLC-II, and PEP-X (few nm horizontal x few pm vertical)
Very low emittance achieved in ATF, Diamond, SLS
Successful crab waist luminosity tests at DAFNE
Spin manipulation tests in Novosibirsk
Efficient spin generation with a high current gun and spin transport to the Final Focus at the SLC
Successful 2 beams, asymmetric Interaction Regions built by KEKB and PEP-II
Successful continuous injection with the detector taking data (KEKB and PEP-II)

14. SuperB main features
Goal: maximize luminosity while keeping wall power low
2 rings (~4 GeV and ~7 GeV) with flexible design
Ultra low emittance optics: 7x4 pm vertical emittance
Beam currents: comparable to present Factories
LPA & CW scheme used to maximize luminosity and minimize beam size blow-up
No “emittance” wigglers used (save power)
Design based on recycling PEP-II hardware (save costs)
Longitudinal polarization for electrons in the HER (unique feature)
Possibility to push the cm energy down to the t-charm threshold with a luminosity of 1035 cm-2 s-1

15. SuperB parameters flexibility
LER/HER
Unit
June 2008
Jan. 2009
March 2009
LNF site
E+/E-
GeV
4/7 L
cm-2 s-1
1x1036
I+/I-
Amp
1.85 /1.85
2.00/2.00
2.80/2.80
2.70/2.70
Npart
x1010
5.55 /5.55
6/6
4.37/4.37
4.53/4.53
Nbun
1250
2400
1740
Ibunch mA
1.48
1.6
1.17
q/2
mrad 25 30
bx* mm
35/20
by*
0.22 /0.39
0.21 /0.37 ex nm
2.8/1.6 ey pm
7/4 sx
9.9/5.7 sy
39/39
38/38 sz
5/5 xx
X tune shift
0.007/0.002
0.005/0.0017
0.004/0.0013 xy
Y tune shift
0.14 /0.14
0.125/0.126
0.091/0.092
0.094/0.095
RF stations
5/6
5/8
6/9
RF wall plug power MW
16.2 18
25.5
30.
Circumference m
1800*
1400#
*Antisymmetric Spin Rotators add 300 m, # Symmetric Spin Rotators included

16. Strong-strong beam-beam simulations
K. Ohmi (KEKB)
Strong-strong modified code (much faster):
PIC for beams overlap area
gaussian for beam tails
June ’08 lattice, tune shift = 0.14
Luminosity of 1036 can be reached

17. BB optimization with lattice nonlinearities (weak-strong Lifetrack code)
Crab “strength”
Piminov, Shatilov (BINP), Zobov (LNF)
Ideal case
Nonlinear elements included: longer tails affect the lifetime
All plots:
X from
0 to 10 sx
Y from
0 to 100 sy
Change of the working point: emittance blow up almost disappears
Changing the octupole strength: lifetime increased by a factor of 3-4 for CW strength  0.8 and 0.9
Lifetime 30 min

18. Arcs Lattice
Arc cells design based on decreasing the natural emittance by increasing mx/cell
Alternating sequence of two different arc cells: a mx = 0.5 cell, that provides the best dynamic aperture, and a mx = 0.75 cell with much smaller intrinsic emittance which provides phase slippage for sextupoles pairs, so that one arc corrects all phases of chromaticity. Then:
- chromatic function Wx < 20 everywhere
- b and a variation with particle momentum are close to zero
- larger dynamic aperture
x-emittance vs x-phase advance/cell
HER cells host 2 x 5.4 m long PEP-II dipoles
LER cells host 4 x 0.45 m long PEP-II dipoles
Final Focus in LER and HER have 18 PEPII-HER type bends each
P. Raimondi, M. Biagini (LNF)

19. Final Focus for polarised HER
Final Focus layout has been modified to be compatible with the insertion of Spin Rotators
This is a better solution in terms of dynamic properties and two-rings layout
Other options are still not excluded and need additional studies IP
Crab Sextupole
Öb in half FF from IP to beginning of ARC
It is essentil that the chromaticity of the FF
is corrected before the crab sextupole

20. Ring b-functions, FF included, Spin Rotators not included
Straights in the middle of the Arcs can host RF, injection, wigglers (in case needed)

21. LER Dynamic Aperture tune scan
Before the IR sextupoles optimization
Strong sextupoles (mainly vertical) in IR are the major source of DA limitation, due to –I phase advance detuning for “long” sextupoles  DA recovered by adding weak correction sextupoles (strength <10% of the main ones)
Tune point optimization should be done together with the beam-beam simulation and the luminosity/lifetime optimization
Blue – arc sextupoles alone
Red – IR sextupoles optimized
Black – arc and optimized IR sextupoles together. Additional optimization is necessary
After the IR sextupoles optimization
E. Levichev, P. Piminov (BINP)

22. IR design QD0 design of new conception QD0 & QF1 are SC and
M. Sullivan (SLAC)
With a larger crossing angle (60 mrad total) beams are far enough apart at 0.35 m from the IP to have enough space to install a PM, in front of QD0, for LER which needs more focusing
QD0 design of new conception
QD0 & QF1 are SC and
share same cryostat
Compensating solenoids
are included

23. R&D on SC Quadrupoles at the IP
E. Paoloni (Pisa),
S. Bettoni (CERN)
Total field in black
LER
HER
Latest design:
Q & qq
Coils

24. Polarization in HER Polarization of one beam is included
either energy beam could be polarized
LER less expensive, HER easier (HER was chosen)
Longitudinal polarization times and short beam lifetimes indicate a need to inject vertically polarized electrons
plan is to use SLC polarized e- gun
There are several possible IP spin rotators:
solenoids look better (vertical bends give unwanted vertical emittance growth)
Expected longitudinal polarization at IP ~ 85%(inj) x 95%(ring) = 80%(effective)
U. Wienands (SLAC)
Spin rotator with solenoids and bends

25. HER with spin rotator
Y. Nosochov, W. Wittmer (SLAC)
Introduced spin rotators on both sides of IP in HER to provide longitudinal polarized electrons at IP and maintain the chromatic characteristic of the original design necessary for the crab waist scheme, band width and dynamic aperture
Bends have opposite sign w.r.t. IP for spin transparency condition
New rings
layout

26. Layout: PEP-II magnets reuse
Lmag (m)
0.45
5.4
PEP HER -
194
PEP LER
SBF HER
130
SBF LER
224 18
SBF Total
148
Needed 30
HER with spin rotators
Dipoles
Available
Needed
Quads
Lmag (m)
0.56
0.73
0.43
0.7
0.4
PEP HER
202 82 -
PEP LER
353
SBF HER
165
108 2
SBF LER 88
SBF Total
253
216 4
Needed
51*
134
Lmag (m)
0.25
0.5
PEP HER/LER
188 -
SBF Total
372 4
Needed
184
Sexts
All PEP-II magnets can be used, dimensions and fields are in range
RF requirements are met by the present PEP-II RF system

27. SuperB site choices University of Tor Vergata Campus: green field
SPARX-I
SuperB
Linac
SPARX-II
Det. Hall
SuperB rings
C ~ 2.1 km
University of Tor Vergata Campus:
green field
C ~ 1.4 km
Injector
Det. Hall
Frascati National Laboratories:
existing infrastructures

28. SuperB Injector layout
SHB
L GeV
5.7 GeV
0.1GeV
0.8 GeV
e+ DR A B D C
> 4/7 GeV PS
GUN
≈ 70 m.
≈ 320 m.
≈ 60 m.
≈ 400 m. β
e- DR α g R
SuperB Injector layout
Polarised SLC electron gun
2 Damping Rings
S-band Linacs
Positron converter
Cycle: 16 Hz e- injection, 16 Hz e+ production, 16 Hz e+ injection
R. Boni, S. Guiducci (LNF), J. Seeman (SLAC)

29. Lattice studies toward a more compact layout
Optimized Arc lattice and DA with mx=0.75, my=0.25 in all ARC cells
Just two Arcs left with 21 Cells each (from 4 Arcs*14cells)
30% Fewer sexts: sext-nosext-sext-sext-nosext-sext etc…
Arc DA further increased since all sextupoles are at –I in both planes (although x and y sextupoles are nested)
Emittance smaller and adjustable by varying the b and h in the ARCs
Magnet spacing now fits with the PEP-II hardware (6% lengthening)
Damping time 5% shorter than previous design
Integrated the CDR FF (the shortest) with the shortest lattice
Emittance 20% higher than design
HER power 20% higher than design
With reduced HER energy (6.7 GeV), emittance and power down by 20%
With Spin Rotators in LER (4.18 GeV)  ring about 1.32 Km long
Possible to consider a different site for this layout
P. Raimondi, M. Biagini (LNF)

30. Arcs + FF (no SR)
Straights in the middle of the Arcs are missing (not required for optics properties, but can be added if needed for RF, Injection etc…)
More compact FF, angle readjusted to match the bending required for polarization
SPIN Rotators can be included just after crab sextupoles, outside FF

31. Collaboration is welcome
TDR topics list
Injection System
Polarized gun
damping rings
spin manipulators
linac
positron converter
beam transfer systems
Collider design
Two rings lattice
Polarization insertion
IR design
beam stay clear
ultra-low emittance tuning
detector solenoid compensation
coupling correction
orbit correction
stability
beam-beam simulations
beam dynamics and instabilities
single beam effects
operation issues
injection scheme
RF System
RF specifications
RF feedbacks
Low level RF
Synchronization and timing
Site
Civil construction
Infrastructures & buildings
Power plants
Fluids plants
Radiation safety
Magnets
Design of missing magnets
Refurbishing existing magnets
Field measurements
QD0 construction
Power supplies
Injection kickers
Mechanical layout and alignment
Injector
supports
Vacuum system
Arcs pipe
Straights pipe
IR pipe
e-cloud remediation electrodes
bellows
impedance budget simulations
pumping system
Diagnostics
Beam position monitors
Luminosity monitor
Current monitors
Synchrotron light monitor
R&D on diagnostics for low emittance
Feedbacks
Transverse
Longitudinal
Orbit
Luminosity
Electronics & software
Control system
Architecture
Design
Peripherals
Collaboration is welcome
on all these items !!! 31

32. Super-KEKB (“Italian” scheme)
The upgrade of KEKB was based on pushing the beam currents to extremely high and hard to reach values (9.4 A on 4.1 A). Corresponding required electric power was more than double of present KEKB one. Moreover tune shifts values jumped to incredibly high values
Recently it was decided to adopt for SuperKEKB the SuperB collision scheme and beam parameters, in order to overcome beam current and tune shifts issues
The new scheme, so called “nanobeams” or “Italian” will allow to reach 8x1035 cm-2s-1 with a big restyling of the two rings (most of magnets and all beam pipe replaced, new damping ring, etc...). “Crab waist” sextupoles are an option
Some R&D money has been provided for this year
Governement approval, if any, of the upgrade is expected before end of this year
If approved, operation is expected to start by end of 2013, if KEKB will be shutdown in March 2010

33. Super-KEKB Italian scheme
SuperB and Super-KEKB
Parameter
Units
SuperB
Super-KEKB old scheme
Super-KEKB Italian scheme
Energy (L/H)
GeV
4x7
3.5x8
Luminosity
1036/ cm2/s
1.0
0.5 to 0.8
0.8
Beam currents (L/H) A
2.x2.
9.4x4.1
3.8x2.18
Nbunches (L/H)
1250
5000
2230
ey* (L/H) pm
7/4
240/90
33.6/10.7
ex* (L/H) nm
2.8/1.6
24/18
2.8/2
by* (L/H) mm
0.21/0.37 3.
bx* (L/H) cm
3.5/2.0
20.
4.4/2.5
sz (L/H)
5/5
5/3
Crossing angle (full)
mrad
60.
30. to 0.
RF power (AC line) MW 18 90 50
Tune shifts (L/H)
0.125/0.126
0.3/0.51
0.081/0.081

34. DAFNE Collaboration Team
DAFNE with LPA & CW
D. Alesini, M. E. Biagini, C. Biscari, R. Boni, M. Boscolo, F. Bossi, B. Buonomo, A. Clozza, G. Delle Monache, T. Demma, E. Di Pasquale, G. Di Pirro, A. Drago, A. Gallo, A. Ghigo, S. Guiducci, C. Ligi, F. Marcellini, G. Mazzitelli, C. Milardi, F. Murtas, L. Pellegrino, M. Preger, L. Quintieri, P. Raimondi, R. Ricci, U. Rotundo, C. Sanelli, M. Serio, F. Sgamma, B. Spataro, A. Stecchi, A. Stella, S. Tomassini, C. Vaccarezza, M. Zobov (INFN/LNF, Italy), I. Koop, E. Levichev, P. Piminov, D. Shatilov, V. Smaluk (BINP, Russia), S. Bettoni (CERN, Switzerland), K. Ohmi (KEK, Japan), N. Arnaud, D. Breton, P. Roudeau, A. Stocchi, A. Variola, B. F. Viaud (LAL, France), M. Esposito (Rome1 Univ., Italy), E. Paoloni (Pisa Univ., Italy), P. Branchini (Roma3 Univ., Italy), M. Schioppa (INFN-Cosenza, Italy) , P. Valente (INFN-Roma, Italy)
DAFNE Collaboration Team

35. LPA & CW at upgraded DAFNE
Physics Program
Beam Dynamics
Fitted DAFNE schedule (shut down for SIDDHARTA installation)
Satisfied new physics programs (SIDDHARTA, KLOE2, FINUDA)
Required moderate modifications
Relatively low cost (1 MEuro)
No detector solenoidal field
No splitter magnets
No compensating solenoids
No parasitic crossings
Lower beam impedance (simpler IR, new bellows, new injection kickers)
DAFNE upgraded for Siddharta experiment at end 2007
New collision scheme implemente
Several new components installe
Geometry of rings slightly changed
Siddharta final detector installed in Sep. ’08
New machine

36. Beam profiles @IP and new parameters
DAFNE (KLOE run)
DAFNE
(KLOE run)
DAFNE Upgrade
Ibunch (mA) 13
Nbunch
110
by* (cm)
1.8
0.85
bx* (cm)
160 26
sy* (mm)
5.4 low curr
3.1
sx* (mm)
700
260
sz (mm) 25 20
Horizontal tune shift
0.04
0.008
Vertical tune shift
0.055
qcross (mrad) (half)
12.5
FPiwinski
0.45
2.0
L (cm-2s-1)
1.5x1032
5x1032
DAFNE Upgrade
3 times more luminosity obtained just with 3 times smaller vertical beam

37. High current operation
Main hardware upgrades have been implemented to improve the stored current:
Fast kickers
Feedback upgrade
Lower impedance vacuum chamber
Solenoid windings for e-cloud suppression
Brand new IRs: one is for collision, in the other the 2 beams are completely separated

38. Siddharta Interaction Region

39. New fast injection kickers
New stripline injection kickers with 5.4 ns pulse length to reduce perturbation on stored beam
Higher maximum stored currents
Improved stability of colliding beams during injection
Less backgrounds, data acquisition during injection possible
Old pulse length ~150ns t VT
FWHM pulse length ~5.4 ns
50 bunches
3 bunches

40. Bunch lengthening in upgraded vacuum chamber
Charge Distribution
old
new

41. LPA & CW Optics Commissioning
Lot of work done to match optics (main problems from IP-Permanent Magnets out of specs w.r.t. gradients)
Well established proper CW optics requirements between Sextupoles and IP
Sextupoles alignment procedure in single beam mode:
turn on one sextupole at the time, measure the tune shift and move the orbit:
horizontally until no tune shift is observed
vertical until no coupling change is observed on Synchrotron Light Monitor
Verified that turning ON both sextupoles there are NO effects on:
Tunes
Coupling
Lifetime
Background
Finally crab sextupoles were turned on in collision…

42. Crab Waist works: first experimental evidence
Crab Sextupoles on all the time since the first time they were tested

43. Luminosity vs I+I- Data averaged on a full day by*=9mm, FP=1.9
Luminosity [1028 cm-2 s-1]
by*=18mm, FP=0.6
by*=9mm, FP=1.9
by*=25mm, FP=0.3
LPA alone gives more luminosity
Data averaged on a full day

44. Specific L vs I+I- by*=9mm, FP=1.9 Specific Luminosity [1028 cm-2 s-1]
Same beam sizes and specific luminosity
at low current with an without Crab Sextupoles
by*=25mm, FP=0.3
by*=18mm, FP=0.6
by*=9mm, FP=1.9

45. Present performances
Peak Luminosity
(cm-2s-1) I-
(A) I+
Nbunches
Int. L /hour
(pb-1)
Int. L /day
Wall plug power
(MW)
KLOE*
1.52x1032
1.55
1.25
110
0.44
9.83 6
Siddharta#
4.5x1032
1.4
1.1
105
1.02 15 4
* before upgrade LPA&CW
# after upgrade LPA&CW
Wigglers field was also reduced (less damping needed since beam-beam is smaller) in order to save on running cost
Performances are still limited because of “standard problems” as:
- e-cloud
- Ion trapping
- RF stability
We hope to further reduce their impact on the performances and gain in peak currents and in Luminosity at a given current

46. Conclusions (1)
SuperB parameters are being optimized around 1036 cm-2 s-1
A baseline SuperB lattice with spin rotators has been designed for the Tor Vergata site
Beam-beam and dynamic aperture calculations are in progress, strong-strong simulations are encouraging
Beam loading, RF parameters, have been studied and look ok
Injection and feedback system designs are in good shape
Among several other studies another lattice is under consideration for the LNF site option
A Mini-MAC has endorsed the SuperB design
Planning for a Technical Design Report is started
INFN intends to start MOU’s with labs and agencies to officially support the project and the TDR phase
A governement decision expected by end of this year

47. Conclusions (2)
LPA & CW scheme is promising to push forward the high luminosity frontier for storage rings colliders
Tests on adapting an existing machine, DAFNE, have been very successfull
A B-Factory based on such a scheme could give yet another two orders of magnitude jump in luminosity goal
Other machines and projects might benefit as well (KEKB, BEPc, LHC, Super-t (Novosibirsk)), however its implementation on existing layouts is not trivial