slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Introduction Main limitations (some of) acceptances & emittances space-charge

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 23

Introduction Main limitations (some of) acceptances & emittances space-charge - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 76 Views
  • Uploaded on

IS IT POSSIBLE TO INCREASE THE p INTENSITY FOR CNGS BY A FACTOR 2 OR 3 ? R. CAPPI / SL Seminar, 21.03.2002. Introduction Main limitations (some of) acceptances & emittances space-charge double batch injection bunch flattening 5 turn Continuous Transfer new 5t CT List of various schemes

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Introduction Main limitations (some of) acceptances & emittances space-charge' - burke-pacheco


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1
IS IT POSSIBLE TO INCREASE THE p INTENSITY FOR CNGS BY A FACTOR 2 OR 3 ?R. CAPPI / SL Seminar, 21.03.2002
  • Introduction
  • Main limitations (some of)
    • acceptances & emittances
    • space-charge
      • double batch injection
      • bunch flattening
    • 5 turn Continuous Transfer
      • new 5t CT
  • List of various schemes
  • Conclusion
introduction
Introduction
  • The talk is a ‘simplified’ summary of the paper:CERN/PS 2001-041 (AE) or CERN/SL 2001-032
  • speculations => studies & experiments
  • all results are PRELIMINARY and generally OPTIMISTIC
  • the talk will be mainly devoted to PSB-PS issues
  • I will not talk about collective effects ( except sp. ch.), longit. beam dynamics issues , transition crossing, etc.
introduction basic limitations
Introduction: basic limitations
  • NB: The present scheme is “consistent”
    • i.e. LINAC, PSB, PS and SPS are all close to their limits,
      • i.e. there is not a single weak point
  • Linac2
    • Close to its max Ip
  • PSB
    • Space charge ~limited
    • Ek,max limited (1.4GeV)
  • PS
    • Acceptance ~limited
    • Space charge ~limited
    • 5t Continous Transfer
    • ….
  • SPS
    • Acceptance limited
    • ….
  • Common: T & L collective effects, losses, transition, PRF , etc.

recent results

acceptance emittance issues
Acceptance & emittance issues

PS acceptance: Ax=60mm, Ay=20mm ex2< 22mm, ey2< 9mm

LHC ~ 5 5

Ex2

Experiments

Ax limit

Ey2

Ay limit

Courtesy of R.Steerenberg

slide5

PSB

PS

SPS

Present scenario & associated problems

L2

50 MeV

Limit

Nt = 3.3

ex< 22

ey< 9

1.4 GeV, h<0.9

DQ x,y~ 0.13 , 0.23

ex= 25

ey= 12

Nt = 3

14 GeV/c; 5t CT ; h=0.8

  • NB: in all transparencies:
  • ex= 4sx2/bx in mm
  • intensities Nt are in 10^13 p
  • 3) h is the transfer efficiency
  • 4) yp is the p flux on target in 10^13p/s

X

Limit

ex= 4.2/3 = 1.4

ey= 2.5

ex< 3

ey< 2

Nt = 4.8

G.Arduini

filling time = 1.2s

yp = 4.8/6 = 0.8 G = 1

space charge at low energy in the ps
Space charge (at low energy in the PS)

Self field tune shift:

In the PS, to be safe :

If : T=1.4 GeV, ex = 22mm, ey = 9mmNt < 4.8 E13 p/p

(Kb=8)

to reach it WE NEED ADOUBLE BATCH INJECTION

NB: the SPS filling time will increase by 1.2 s (or 0.6 s if PSB can pulse 2x faster* )

PS LIMIT

*) M.Benedict et al. , undergoing study

double batch injection into ps forecast

PSB

PS

SPS

Double batch injection into PS: forecast

L2

50 MeV

Limit

Nt = 2 x 2.4

ex< 22

ey< 9

1.4 GeV; h=1

ex= 21

ey= 9.2

DQ x,y~ 0.21 ; 0.35

Nt = 4.8 => Intensity limit

for a PS @ 1.4 GeV

14 GeV/c; old 5t CT;h=0.8

Limit

X

ex= 3.4/3 = 1.13

ey= 1.4

ex< 3

ey< 2

Nt = 7.7

yp = 7.7/7.2 = 1.07 G = 1.34

yp = 7.7/6.6 = 1.17 if [email protected], G = 1.46

recent results of high intensity double batch injection studies
Recent results of high intensity double batch injection studies

Experiments

PS transformer

Beam

intensity

( E10 p/p)

1st batch

2nd batch

Time (ms)

Courtesy E. Metral

slide9

Comparing with LHC “ultimate beam”

DQ = 0.20, 0.26

PS transformer

Beam

intensity

( E10 p/p)

Time (ms)

Courtesy G.Metral,E. Metral

can we improve space charge limits
Can we improve space charge limits?
  • Increase injection energy

(e.g. with SPL)

  • Reduce Ip by ‘bunch flattening’ techniques:
  • (gain <1.5)

time

slide11

A new bunch flattening technique (*)

(*) C.Carli /CERN-PS-2001-073-AE

and EPAC2002

slide12

Bunch flattening in PSB: recent results

Final bunch

Initial bunch

Experiments

DQ reduction of ~28%

Courtesy C.Carli

5 turn c ontinuous t ransfer
5 turn Continuous Transfer

It is the way the PS uses to fill the SPS (at 14 GeV/c)

CSPS = 11 x CPS

PS

PS

SPS

Present system:

+ it works

- it is lossy (~20%)

x’

2

Qx = 6.25

3

1

5

x

Extracted beam

4

.

TT2 transfo

1

2

3

4

5

ES blade

time, 2ms / div

proposal for a n ew 5t ct

Initial state

Final state

Simulation results

Simulation results

Proposal for a new 5t CT(*)

The principle:

  • the beam is adiabatically captured into 4 islands of a 4th

order resonance properly adjusted with sextupoles and octupoles,

ES

2) then the beam is extracted similarly to the present scheme.

(*) M.Giovannozzi, R.Cappi ; Phys. Rev. Lett., V.88, i.10

n 5t ct pro con
n 5t CT: pro / con

+ it should be less lossy (~5%)

+ the five beamlets will match the phase space topology better =>

less betatron mismatch at injection in the SPS=> lower transv. emittance beam to SPS =>

lower losses => higher intensity

- it has to be tested experimentally

slide16

n5tCT: (x, x’ ) topology

qx

Courtesy M.Giovannozzi

time

~ 30 ms

slide17

n5tCT: x-x’ measurement results

Courtesy M.E.Angoletta, A-S.Muller, M.Martini,…)

slide18

MAD simulations

Courtesy A-S.Muller

slide19

MAD simulations (suite)

Courtesy A-S.Muller

slide20

PSB

PS

SPS

Expected results from: double batch+ n5tCT

L2

50 MeV

Nt = 2 x 2.4

ex< 22

ey< 9

1.4 GeV, h=0.9

ex= 21

ey= 9.2

Nt = 4.8

14 GeV/c; new5t CT; h=0.9

ex= 3.4/5 = 0.68

ey= 1.4

ex< 3

ey< 2

RMKS:

10% improvement => h=0.9

=>lower transfer losses,

better matching, etc.

Nt = 8.6

filling time = 2.4s

yp = 8.6/7.2 = 1.19 G = 1.49

yp = 8.6/6.6 = 1.30 if [email protected] G = 1.63

what about the sps
What about the SPS ?
  • Single bunch coll. effects:
    • 8.6E13ppp => 2 E10 p/b [LHC~10 E10; e-cloud > 4 E10 (5ns?)]
    • Transverse impedance strongly reduced since 2002 => ~OK
  • Beam loading:
    • 8.6E13ppp => 0.4 E13/ms [ LHC~0.5 E13p/ms]~OK
    • better if p=26GeV/c
  • Transv. & long. Feedbacks
    • HW modifications? 20=>100 MHz?
    • octupoles :YES (some e x,y b.u. accepted) ~OK ?
  • Transition:
    • now 5% losses,
    • better if p=26GeV/c
    • Etc.

K.Cornelis, T.Linnecar, E.Schaposnikova,…

conclusion
Conclusion
  • first studies show encouraging results not onlyfor CNGS but for LHC itself and for cleaning up the machines by improving reliability
  • a gain in p flux of ~1.5 seems feasible though difficult (cost ~0-2MCHF)
  • a gain of ~2 is maybe possible but will be more expensive(~50MCHF)
  • a gain of 3 will be VERY expensive ( ~300MCHF) and probably technically unrealistic
  • we need a.s.a.p. clear priorities to continueat efficient speed.
ad