1 / 5

Answer to Question

Answer to Question. What is the analysis backing up the claim that the losses will be reduced with the new corrector system in the Booster? What are the expectations for performance with the new systems implemented?

cmeyer
Download Presentation

Answer to Question

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. Answer to Question • What is the analysis backing up the claim that the losses will be reduced with the new corrector system in the Booster? What are the expectations for performance with the new systems implemented? • All analyses are calculations are based on the assumption that we keep the absolute total beam loss in the Booster more or less what it is now. • Increased efficiency-> Reduced losses-> more beam AAC Review, May 10, 2006 - Prebys

  2. Techniques for calculating benefit of correctors • Lacking a detailed model for Booster beam loss, two approaches have been applied • Assume gaussian beam profile and Booster physical aperture • Method in McGinnis’ analysis • Appropriate later in cycle • Independently verifies observed COD • Calculate fractional change in effective aperture represented by 95% emittance. • Probably more accurate for hard scraping early in cycle • Leads to a more conservative estimate • Used in Proton Plan projections • CAVEAT: Beam motion calculations are complicated by the injection bump mismatch and the existence of the second extraction region • It should be possible to do far more accurate calculations within a few months of the current shutdown. AAC Review, May 10, 2006 - Prebys

  3. Corrector Performance • Assume that the new correctors, together with the new ORBUMP and improved alignement will reduce the COD from 1cm -> 2mm • Also assume that the local chromaticity correction will eliminate at ~10% emittance blowup caused by the existing system. • Remember that in all cases, the “design curve” is based on realizing 50% of the potential benefit of an improvement after 1 year of tuning. • If I turn this around, this says I have only succeeded in reducing the COD to ~5 mm AAC Review, May 10, 2006 - Prebys

  4. Effect of Improvements Represents factor of 15-20 over typical rates prior to neutrino program AAC Review, May 10, 2006 - Prebys

  5. Corrector benefits not yet quantified • More effective use use collimation system • Collimation system should reduce uncontrolled beam loss by factor of ~10 • In practice, more like a factor of 2-3, and this is what is used in projections. • Uncontrolled beam motion likely largely to blame. • Better beam control at transition will allow use of gamma-t system • New gamma-t magnets will be installed along with short straight correctors in 2008 • Not “officially” accounted for yet • Ability to correct third order resonances with sextupoles. Correct with normal sextuples Correct with skew sextuples AAC Review, May 10, 2006 - Prebys

More Related