Part of discussion led by oliver bruning cern vladimir shiltsev larp fermilab
Download
1 / 12

Part of discussion led by Oliver Bruning, CERN Vladimir Shiltsev, LARP/Fermilab - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 57 Views
  • Uploaded on

Soft Ranking of LHC Upgrade Possibilities. Part of discussion led by Oliver Bruning, CERN Vladimir Shiltsev, LARP/Fermilab. Factors to be considered. Whether technology available if not – when Cost of the Upgrade <few MEU,<few 10s M,<few 100sM Time to construct & install

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 ' Part of discussion led by Oliver Bruning, CERN Vladimir Shiltsev, LARP/Fermilab' - joanne


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
Part of discussion led by oliver bruning cern vladimir shiltsev larp fermilab

Soft Ranking of

LHC Upgrade Possibilities

Part of discussion led by

Oliver Bruning, CERN

Vladimir Shiltsev, LARP/Fermilab


Factors to be considered
Factors to be considered

  • Whether technology available

    • if not – when

  • Cost of the Upgrade

    • <few MEU,<few 10s M,<few 100sM

  • Time to construct & install

  • Luminosity gain

  • Physics risk to not get the gain

    • e.g. energy deposition, BB, optics

LHC Upgrades – O.Bruning, V.Shiltsev



Thus:

  • Group A (definetely explore)

    • all collimator projects

    • both quad first paths

    • b-b compensation schemes: W, EL

  • Group B (carefully look into)

    • Short bunch and 12.5-75 ns

    • Dipole first

    • Crab crossing

LHC Upgrades – O.Bruning, V.Shiltsev


Worth the buck
“Worth the buck?”:

  • Tev(RHIC?) rule of thumb:

    1M$ upgrade  2-4% in Lumi

  • Group A

    • feedback

    • b-b compensation schemes: W, EL

    • new collimation schemes

    • both quad first paths

    • new 12.5-75ns schemes

  • Group B (carefully look into)

    • Short bunch

    • All IR upgrades

LHC Upgrades – O.Bruning, V.Shiltsev


Manager s view
Manager’s View

Depends on “Manager’s Model” 

assume intelligent manager:

  • Paranoic – minimize the risk

  • Assure SOME improvement

  • Start long lead projects ASAP

LHC Upgrades – O.Bruning, V.Shiltsev



Thus:

  • Group A (DO NOW)

    • both quad first paths

    • Magnet R&D… Magnet R&D…MagnetR&D

  • Group B (support now , be prepared to do later)

    • feedback

    • collimator schemes (RC, LEL, Crystals)

    • beam-beam compensation schemes

  • Group C (make sure assumptions/ estimates right, before rule out):

    • dipole first

    • short bunches

    • crab crossing

LHC Upgrades – O.Bruning, V.Shiltsev


Possible action items i
Possible Action Items (I)

  • MAGNETS – all has been said already

  • MARS and Fluka has to agree (resolve ~2 difference)

LHC Upgrades – O.Bruning, V.Shiltsev


Possible action items ii
Possible Action Items (II)

  • On a way to decision in ~1 yr:

    • Riccardo to wrap up dipole first analysis

      • Work with Tanaji (visit FNAL for ~mos) and Ramesh (a week at BNL)

    • Rama to finish crab cavity analysis

      • Given Ohmi’s error – reconsider tolerances

      • Learn from KEK experience

      • Generate the most attractive proposal

    • Short bunches so attractive

      • Make one more inventive/critical look

LHC Upgrades – O.Bruning, V.Shiltsev


Possible action items iii
Possible Action Items (III)

  • Deeper collaborative look into items promising a lot of return for small investment:

    • collaboration important as CERN people to be busy with commissioning while “helpers” don’t “feel” the machine well

    • beam demonstrations most convincing

    • allow to attract and keep younger scientists interested

  • Therefore:

    • Expand beam-beam simulations collaboration on LEL (Ulrich, VS, FZ)

LHC Upgrades – O.Bruning, V.Shiltsev


Cont d
Cont’d

  • simulate LEL hollow collimator (Rogelio, , FZ, VS)

  • look into low-noise FB tolerances (??)

  • crystal collimation design considerations (Walter+LARPies)

  • full support of BBLR MDs at RHIC and rotating collimators (LARPies)

  • very low beta* solutions very sesnsitive to vibrations, need to look into tolerances and research vibration levels, including beam screen jitter(Riccardo, Vladimir)

LHC Upgrades – O.Bruning, V.Shiltsev


ad