Uknf 24 th june 2003
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 28

UKNF – 24 th June 2003 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 87 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

UKNF – 24 th June 2003. SR proposals: Introduction - Ken Long Proton Driver - Ian Gardner Targetry - Paul Drumm Design Study - Rob Edgecock World-wide Design Study - Rob Edgecock Status of MICE - Giles Barr

Download Presentation

UKNF – 24 th June 2003

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


UKNF – 24th June 2003

  • SR proposals:Introduction- Ken LongProton Driver - Ian GardnerTargetry- Paul DrummDesign Study- Rob Edgecock

  • World-wide Design Study- Rob Edgecock

  • Status of MICE- Giles Barr

  • Summary of NuFact’03- Peter Norton

  • MuScat 2003- Malcolm Ellis


Other stuff

  • UK Neutrino Factory design- Complete layout at RAL- Incorporates proton driver and target work

  • World-wide design study- Introduction- View from Europe- “ “ Japan- “ “ US- Conclusions of discussion at NuFact’03

  • Summary of bid


Target

Cooling

Proton driver

UK Neutrino Factory Design

RAL Neutrino Factory layout


NF Layout

  • Need to complete current design work:- proton driver (HARP results)- targetry- muon frontend

  • Need to extend to remainder of machine- muon acceleration- storage ring

  • Need to optimise

  • Need to produce coherent design


Frontend without Cooling

Grahame Rees et al

Pion-muon decay channel

88 MHz muon linac


Frontends with Cooling


Frontends without Cooling

Solenoid

channel

Es=190MeV

Solenoid

channel

Es=190MeV

RF phase

rotation

channel

Es=190MeV

Inverse

rotation

channel

Es=190MeV

Linac

Es=400MeV

(Transmission

=77%)

Linac

Es=400MeV

Transmission comparable to 44/88MHz scheme


Rings

Grahame Rees et al

S = solenoid, A = absorber, 36 cavities in blocks of 3

  • Hybrid ring, using solenoids and dipoles

  • 44m circumference: 18m straights, 4m bends

  • 4m sections for injection and extraction

  • Initial results looking promising


World-Wide Design Study

  • Introduction

  • View from Europe - RE

  • “ “ Japan- Yoshi Kuno

  • “ “ US- Mike Zisman

  • Conclusions from the discussion


Introduction

  • Two years since Study II

  • A lot has been done since then

  • Time to start thinking about a third study

  • Much better:world study

  • Europe, Japan and US

  • Parallel session of WG3 devoted to this

  • Views of each region

  • Discussion on how to form world-wide study


View from…….Europe

  • No design study so far

  • Work started late 1990s

  • Much achieved

  • Two layouts: CERN (complete) RAL (under development)

  • Effort dramatically reduced by CERN budget cuts

  • ECFA task forces re-organised  European Neutrino Group

  • Very important: rejuvenate EU activities


Design Study – European View

  • Fixed by EU Framework 6 programme

  • FP5: 2 Neutrino Factory related bids, both failed

  • FP6: ESGARD formed - coordinated bid for accelerator R&D

  • Two areas of interest: Integrating ActivitiesDesign Studies

  • IA proposal already submitted: LHC upgrade, LC, NF

  • Basically for improving existing infrastructure

IA  Neutrino Factory, superbeam, beta beam networkHIPPI JRA


FP6 Design Studies

  • EC will contribute to:

  • Feasibility studies – paper studies

  • Technical Preparatory Work – hardware

  • On new research infrastructures with a clear European dimension and interest.

  • Includes: future facilities of world-wide relevance not existing in Europe infrastructures constructed outside EU!


FP6 Design Studies

Feasibility studies

  • Aim: Lay conceptual foundations for new infrastructure

  • Methods:

  • Basic feasibility study

  • Explore new fundamental technology

  • Detailed engineering design, particularly most advanced

TPW

  • Includes:

  • Development and testing of critical components, sub-systems, materials or techniques, including software

  • Does not include:

  • preparatory work based on existing or proven techniques

  • reproduction of available components or materials


FP6 Design Studies

Funding:

  • Total budget: 200M€; 70M€ in first call

  • EC contribution per project  10M€

  • 50% matching required(?)

Timing:

  • Call for proposals:October 2003

  • Deadline:Spring 2004

  • Evaluation results:Summer 2004

  • Contract signatures:Start 2005


Design Study Bid

  • EU will make FP6 Design Study bid

  • Essential to re-build activities in Europe

  • Host laboratory: RAL (possibly!)

  • Much better if part of world-wide design study

  • FP6 allows for/encourages this

  • May also provide some funding

  • Aim: ?DR for a Neutrino Factory ~2009


View from……Japan

  • Design study published July 2002

  • Little support from KEK management

  • Based on FFAGs


View from……Japan


View from……Japan


View from……Japan

Staging

Physics outcomes

at each stage

  • High Power Proton Driver

    • Muon g-2

  • Muon Factory (PRISM)

    • Muon LFV

  • Muon Factory-II (PRISM-II)

    • Muon EDM

  • Neutrino Factory

    • Based on 1 MW proton beam

  • Neutrino Factory-II

    • Based on 4.4 MW proton beam

  • Muon Collider


View from……Japan

My interpretation of conclusions

  • Would support a world-wide design study

  • Concern expressed about overlap due to FFAGs

  • Would prefer some level of overlap for activeparticipation

  • Timescale depends on J-PARCnu, LC, etc


View from……..US

Two feasibility studies so far in US

FS1:

  • Instigated by FNAL director

  • MC invited to participate

  • Focus was on feasibility

  • First attempt to specify NF from end-to-end

  • Design based on (reasonably) well understood technology

  • No attempt to optimise cost

  • Cost was a deliverable

  • Feasibility was established

  • Performance poor, costs high


View from……..US

FS2:

  • Collaboration between MC and BNL director

  • BNL managers able to draw on resources

  • Goal: maintain feasibility, but improve performance

  • Cost optimisation again given lower priority

  • Performance: 6x Study I

  • Cost: 75% (but only one RLA)

  • Still too high


View from……..US

FS3:

  • Need to reduce cost

  • Much progress already:Neuffer RF phase rotationFFAG ring or VRCSRing coolers

  • Need to look for optimum betweenProton driverCoolingAccelerationDetector

  • But much better if world-wide study

  • Possible host site (MICE): RAL


Discussion

Should there be a world-wide design study?

Yes

How should we proceed?

Create a steering group

US:Steve GeerBob PalmerMike Zisman

Japan:Yoshi KunoYoshi MoriKenso Nakamura

Europe:Alain Blondel(?)Rob EdgecockHelmut Haseroth

What should be included?

Accelerator and detector

Name?

WDS1(?)


Discussion

Timescale?

Format?

Host laboratory?

Aim?

Etc…..


2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

Neutrino Factory Design

FTE

0.1

2.0

4.0

8.0

Staff cost

7.

146.

304.

640.

Capital and recurrent

0.

10.

50.

500.

VAT (17.5%)

0.

2.

9.

18.

Travel

1.

3.

10.

20.

Sub-total

8.

161.

373.

1178.

Proton Driver

FTE

1.9

5.0

9.0

16.0

Staff cost

133.

365.

684.

1280.

Capital and recurrent

0.

500.

500.

1000.

VAT (17.5%)

0.

88.

88.

175.

Travel

3.

7.

20.

40.

Sub-total

136.

960.

1292.

2395.

Cost Summary


Target Studies

FTE

0.7

5.0

10.0

12.0

Staff cost

50.

365.

760.

960.

Capital and recurrent

0.

360.

900.

1000.

VAT (17.5%)

0.

63.

158.

175.

Travel

1.

10.

25.

30.

Sub-total

51.

798.

1843.

2165.

Design Study

FTE

0.5

0.5

3.5

5.0

Staff cost

35.

37.

266.

400.

Capital and recurrent

0.

0.

0.

50.

VAT (17.5%)

0.

0.

0.

9.

Travel

2.

2.

5.

10.

Sub-total

37.

39.

271.

469.

Total

232.

1958.

3779.

6207.

Working margin (10%)

23.

196.

378.

621.

TOTAL

255.

2154.

4157.

6828.

Cost Summary


  • Login