1 / 18

Discussion and Approval of the BCD

Discussion and Approval of the BCD. Nick Walker ILC-GDE Frascati – 8.12.2005. The Next Two Hours. The road to the BCD brief recap of the process since Snowmass Review of the White Papers BCD EC decisions for the strawman BCD what changes we made Review of comments and feedback

gigi
Download Presentation

Discussion and Approval of the BCD

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. Discussion and Approval of the BCD Nick WalkerILC-GDE Frascati – 8.12.2005

  2. The Next Two Hours • The road to the BCD • brief recap of the process since Snowmass • Review of the White Papers • BCD EC decisions for the strawman BCD • what changes we made • Review of comments and feedback • some comments we have received • what’s missing from the BCD • Formal acceptance of the BCD

  3. Arriving at the BCD • 1st ILC Workshop at KEK (11.2004) • working groups (WG) formed to begin identifying contentious design issues • 2nd ILC Workshop Snowmass (8.2005) • modified WG continue identifying baseline design and alternatives • newly formed ‘Global Groups’ begin to discuss and catalogue global design issues • 2nd Snowmass week: concentrate on the list of ‘Top 40’ critical design questions (Himel List)

  4. Arriving at the BCD (cont) • Comments on Snowmass • first week: formal workshop with traditional parallel working groups • second-week: entire ILC community not present, but those that remain make significant progress on identifying baseline. It was understood that the result of 2nd week deliberations did not necessarily reflect the consensus view of the entire community.

  5. Arriving at the BCD (cont) 2005 November December September October August WW/GG summaries + broader input Response to Himel list (40 questions) all documented ‘recommendations’ publicly available on www (request community feedback) review by BCD EC BCD EC publishes‘strawman’ BCD BCD Executive Committee (EC): BarishDugan, Foster, Takasaki (regional directors)Raubenheimer, Yokoya, Walker (acc. design leads) public review Frascati GDE meeting

  6. Arriving at the BCD (cont) 2005 November December September October August WW/GG summaries + broader input Response to Himel list (40 questions) all documented ‘recommendations’ publiclyavailable on www (request community feedback) review by BCD EC BCD EC publishes‘strawman’ BCD Request for public comment and feedback public review Frascati GDE meeting

  7. BCD EC review process • Snowmass documentation • comments and feedback from general community • ‘white-paper’ task groups on identified contentious items • Barish ‘mini-MAC’ • Burt Richter (SLAC) • Katsunobu Oide (KEK) • Lenni Rivkin (PSI)

  8. White Papers • Energy upgrade • Lijle, Raubenheimer, Toge • IP configuration • Bialowons, Markiewicz, Yamamoto • Number of tunnels • Delahaye, Hayano, Phinney • Location of positron source • Himel, Walker, Yokoya • Tunnel topology • Funk, Schulte, Shidara

  9. BCD EC contrary decisions • Energy upgrade – short tunnel adopted • option 3 in white paper • Main linac quadrupole spacing • 32 quads per quadrupole (24 recommended by WG1) • RTML (bunch compressor) • cost minimal system (two-stage compressor) • evaluate (cost) single-stage system with two-stage system as upgrade rationale: cost

  10. Comment and feedback • SLAC ILC group • modulator baseline • e+ source location (→ white paper) • Armin Reichold (Oxford) • no BCD entry for survey & alignment • Weiren Chou (FNAL) • question concerning gradient cost optimum • GG2 conveners (Braun, Ross, Urakawa) • recommendation for ~1mm linac BPM resolution(current BCD is ‘less than 10mm’) • Gudrid Moorgat-Pick • Importance of focus on CME ≤ 500GeV (strong physics case) • Concerns on potential 1TeV upgrade driving initial design

  11. Barish ‘Mini-MAC’ high-points • Richter • importance of energy flexibility and incremental energy upgrade • physics-driven in light of early LHC results • The case for 2 detectors – 2 IRs • Oide • luminosity parameters – designing a 5×1034machine • Design of RF system to ‘true average gradient performance’ • Questions concerning e+ source • DR discussions (favours dogbone?) BCD EC will respond to all comments and questions

  12. The Baseline Machine (500GeV)

  13. 1TeV upgrade

  14. The Baseline Machine (500GeV) ~30 km ML ~10km (G = 31.5MV/m) 20mr RTML ~1.6km 2mr BDS 5km e+ undulator @ 150 GeV (~1.2km) x2 R = 955m E = 5 GeV not to scale

  15. BCD • Current baseline rather superficial in many places • exception: main linac technology • Many inconsistencies • need pedantic review of details • Much detail still missing and needs to be supplied • tables of parameters • tables of tolerance • figures (cartoons) of basic layouts • lattices • … First work for AGs over the next couple of months (together with the CCB)

  16. BCD EC Formal Acceptance of BCD You got a problem with that?

  17. BCD EC Formal Acceptance of BCD Yeah! Wanna talk about it?

  18. BCD Formal Acceptance • The Role of Change Control • today is notthe final word! • requests for modifications will now be formalised via the CCB • many questions and decisions on details still remain (not currently in the BCD document) • CCB will probably be more of an ‘Acquire Control Board’ in the first few months.

More Related