1 / 14

Production of bunch doublets for scrubbing of the LHC

Production of bunch doublets for scrubbing of the LHC . J. Esteban Muller (simulations ), E . Shaposhnikova 3 December 2013 LBOC Thanks to H. Bartosik, T. Bohl, G. Iadarola , W. Hofle, G . Rumolo For LLRF and ADT compatibility see talks

adem
Download Presentation

Production of bunch doublets for scrubbing of the LHC

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Production of bunch doubletsfor scrubbing of the LHC J. Esteban Muller (simulations), E. Shaposhnikova 3 December 2013 LBOC Thanks to H. Bartosik, T. Bohl, G. Iadarola, W. Hofle, G. Rumolo For LLRF and ADT compatibility see talks of P. Baudrenghien and G. Kotzianat the last LBOC

  2. Method of bunch splitting into two bunchlets • Reduce voltage to minimum possible amplitude (limited by intensity effects) to reduce longitudinal emittance blow-up and uncaptured beam. • Jump RF phase by 180 deg (to unstable phase). • Wait till uncaptured particle will move ½ of RF period and increase sharply voltage to an amplitude sufficient to recapture particles lost from the bunch center. Low voltage  Jump to unstable phase Wait  Voltage increase Buckets arefilled

  3. Different options for bunch splitting • Bunch splitting in the LHC => 2.5 ns doublets • Bunch splitting in the SPS => 5.0 ns doublets. The latter can be done at • injection • flat bottom • flat top • intermediate flat portion (~200 GeV)

  4. Main issues for all options • Acceleration in the SPS • high intensity required for efficient scrubbing (>1.5x1011/bunch, 25 ns spacing) 200 MHz beam loading => slow cycle, but still limited • Beam control of this beam structure • Splitting • longitudinal emittance blow-up • particle losses • beam stability: unstable phase, 800 MHz? • no HW available (even for the tests)

  5. Splitting in LHC: preliminary results • Voltage program: • SPS before extraction: 2 MV • Injection: 3 MV  6 MV • Emittance blow-up: 0.5-> 1.02 eVs • Particle loss • During splitting: ~1% • But due to subsequent voltage reduction during one following injection: ~15% • 10% total loss measured in SPS at beginning of ramp (1 dip) • => Voltage program could be optimized to minimize particle loss: • 1st injection: 3 MV  4 MV (~7% losses), 2nd injection: 4MV  5 MV, … • => LLRF probably can reduce voltage only for injecting beam…

  6. Splitting in LHC Advantages Disadvantages Doublet spacing 2.5 ns is much less interesting for scrubbing (Giovanni) Losses in LHC during splitting Losses during RF manipulations with following SPS injections • Issues with doublets only in LHC, at the last stage • Less problems with injection into LHC • Sufficient RF voltage/bucket in LHC

  7. Splitting in SPS: at injection • Voltage program (same as in measurements) : • at injection: 1 MV  3 MV • Emittance from 0.56 eVs to 0.31 eVs in each bunchlet • Particle loss during splitting ~1%+ 6% to satellites • More losses should be expected during subsequent injections (3 dips more) due to full bucket • For splitting at the end of flat bottom results will not be so good

  8. Splitting in SPS: at injection Advantages Disadvantages E-cloud in the SPS Losses during voltage reduction during the subsequent PS injections(was not observed?) • Long bunches from PS -> very small emittance blow-up • Doesn’t require RF phase jump (new HW) • Already tested in the SPS • Losses at lower energy • Doesn’t need additional flat topin magnetic cycle

  9. Splitting in SPS: flat top • Emittance blow-up: • from 0.5 eVs to 1.76 eVs • Particle loss • During splitting: ~5% • LHC injection: ~30% • Voltage program: • During splitting: 2 MV 4MV • Extraction at 7 MV • LHC injection: 6 MV • Total time needed ~ 0.1 s • LHC buckets filled with this intensity distribution (3 satellites): 3.5% - 43% - 7% - 43% -3.5% • Triplet in case of lower voltage at extraction in the SPS and less losses • Very small final intensity

  10. Splitting in SPS: flat top Advantages Disadvantages Losses at high energy in SPS Extraction of uncaptured beam to LHC Minimum voltage during splitting limited by beam loading => large emittance blow-up Full SPS bucket after splitting => long bunches Losses at injection into LHC Satellite bunches in the LHC • Issues with doublets only on flat top, at the last stage • Less problems with injection into LHC • Sufficient RF voltage/bucket in LHC => Less favorable scenario

  11. Splitting in SPS: flat portion • Voltage program: • During splitting (200 GeV):1 MV 2MV • Extraction to LHC: 7 MV • LHC injection: 6 MV • Emittanceblow-up: • from 0.35 eVs to 0.82 eVs • Particle losses • During splitting ~7 % • LHC injection < 2% • No satellites in LHC (&SPS) • Total time needed ~ 0.1s + even slower ramp

  12. Power limitation during cycle • Similar limitations for 0.4 eVs and 0.8 eVs bunches above 300 GeV • Intensity limited to 1.5x1011/bunch

  13. Splitting in SPS: flat portion Advantages Disadvantages Acceleration of the large emittance => beam loading limitation to the total intensity More complicated magnetic cycle with additional flat portion Losses at relatively high energy in SPS • Emittance blow-up required for beam stability > 200 GeV • More bucket area available in the 2nd part of the ramp • Uncaptured beam is not injected into LHC => Better scenario than splitting at the flat top or LHC injection

  14. Conclusion • Main limitations are expected to be from high intensity (beam loading) and beam losses (full bucket after splitting) • Splitting at SPS injection seems to be the most feasible scenario: minimum emittance blow-up. Can be used after efficient scrubbing of the SPS (1-2 weeks)? • Intermediate flat portion seems to be the 2ndinteresting option (if splitting at SPS injection is rejected due to e-cloud) • Need more detailed simulations (no intensity effects included) • Need new hardware • Need to be tested in MDs • Acceleration of high intensity 25 ns beam in the SPS will beitself very challenging task

More Related