FCC – injector complex features…. …with a view to possible Fixed-Target beams B.Goddard 15/7/14. Outline. Initial assumptions Requirements, p re-injector performance, constraints HEB tunnel options and features SPS LHC FHC Comparison of idealised FT beam performance reach
…with a view to possible Fixed-Target beams
0.16 – 2 GeV (x13)
0-160 MeV (H-)
2 – 26 GeV (x13)
26 – 450 GeV (x17)
0.450 – 4 TeV (x8)
4- 50 TeV (x13)
SPS tunnel: SC low-field can reach 1.1 TeV, but 3.2 TeV is tough
LHC tunnel: wide range of possibilities – including reuse of LHC
FCC tunnel: 2.0/2.5 T NC/SF with 0.33/0.27 filling-factor
Not yet defined…
….but reuse of existing LHC machine has strong “naturalness” arguments in favour, if technically feasible and cost competitive
….so, a digression on reuse of LHC….
RF: need to keep ring 1 and ring2 same length! Min. of 2 crossings
Depends on where transfer to FCC takes place, but would be either P1 or P5
Not yet looked at any details of extraction system requirements or possible layout
Likely to be not particularly straightforward to design conceptually….
e18-e19 p+/year at 4 TeV might be envisaged, in this respect at least….
Stable area in H phase space defined with 6-poles
Shrink area by approaching tune to 1/3 integer
Particles follow separatrices out across septum wire
Spiral step at (60 um) wire ~15 mm determines losses
Anodes made of 2080x 60 um W/Re wires
5 individual anodes, aligned together over ~20 m
For ~300 kW average power, get >10 mSV/h activation…
Factors which could limit the ramp rate for the LHC main dipoles and quadrupoles, between 0.5 and 3.8 T:
What improvement could be gained by realistic upgrades and what is the associated cost, for example:
What also limits the overall cycle time for LHC, between 0.5 and 3.8 T, and what could be done about these:
Could we be limited by the dipole/quadrupolelifetime?