HINS Synergies - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

maite-jimenez
hins synergies n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
HINS Synergies PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
HINS Synergies

play fullscreen
1 / 8
Download Presentation
HINS Synergies
186 Views
Download Presentation

HINS Synergies

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. HINS Synergies • Synergies related to HINS R&D Program • Accelerator Synergy • RIA • Technical Synergies • Long Pulse Modulators • Ferrite Vector Modulators • Superconducting Tuners • b=0.81 Elliptical Cavity Development • Synergies related to Construction of HINS • ILC Test Facility • Muon Production and Acceleration • Neutron Source • FEL

  2. RIA Synergy: Spoke Cavities • Why was the gadget/idea introduced for the PD Project ? • Proven technology • Wider b acceptance • How will the gadget/idea benefit the RIA ? • Design Development • Industrialization • What has been achieved in terms of R&D or Prototyping on the gadget/idea in the past (within the context of a full PD)? • SSR1 Design • Design with higher Eacc/Epeak • What do we plan to do on the gadget/idea in the present and future (within the context of Meson Front End)? • Build full SSR1 & SSR2 Cryomodules • What will we learn that can benefit the RIA in terms of Performance, Operation and Cost ? • Meson Front-end effort will establish beam through SSR & operate them.

  3. Technical Synergy: Long Pulse Modulators (3 ms) • Why was the gadget/idea introduced for the PD Project? • Required to generate 1.5E14 protons for MI if energy gain per meter (cavity field) is fixed and only one of three eventual klystrons is initially available (peak RF power requirement). One millisec pulse is called for in Proton Driver to keep duty cycle at 1% while delivering 2 MW of protons at 8-GeV final energy. • How will the gadget/idea benefit the ILC? “Long Pulse Length in the Main Linac” – “H. Padamsee and B. Foster suggested a longer beam length … in the main linac with the same pulse charge. If, for example, the beam pulse length is doubled (2ms), the beam current and, therefore, the number of modulators/klystrons would be halved, which reduces the cost of the RF system. The cost of the cryogenics system, on the other hand, increases due to the higher duty.” “A more detailed study of the cost is needed. In addition to the cost uncertainty, a longer pulse requires a longer modulator/klystron pulse which is not currently available.” (March 28, 2006 ILC BCD Report) • Lower peak RF power requirement for same delivered beam charge with fixed real-estate gradient, possibly lower cost. • What has been achieved in terms of R&D or Prototyping on the gadget/idea in the past (within the context of a full PD)? • Four and one-half millisec modulator, to support 3 msec beam operation, is under construction. • Three-millisec, 2.5 MW, 325 MHz klystron is on hand. • What do we plan to do on the gadget/idea in the present and future (within the context of Meson Front End)? • Meson Front-end tests will be run in long-pulse mode. • What will we learn that can benefit the ILC in terms of Performance, Operation and Cost ? • Meson Front-end effort will establish modulator cost and negate ILC BCD statement that a long-pulse modulator is not available.

  4. Technical Synergy: High Power IQ Modulators • Why was the gadget/idea introduced for the PD Project? • There is need for fast-responding, high-power RF amplitude and phase control individualized for each cavity when multiple cavities are driven by a single klystron. This is important to achieve low-emittance, low-halo beams, particularly in the non-relativistic section of the H- linac. • How will the gadget/idea benefit the ILC? “… assumes that (1) the rf system would be capable of supporting 35 MV/m operation throughout the linac (2) some of the poorer performing cavities would be de-Q’ed so the associated cryomodule can run at a higher gradient and (3) the cryomodule power feeds would include attenuators so the average gradient in each unit can be maximized.” (March 28, 2006 ILC BCD Report) • High power amplitude control is required at each cavity in ILC so that all cavities need not be operated at the gradient of the weakest cavity in an RF section. • Fast-responding, high-power RF amplitude and phase control may be required for each cavity in the ILC to control beam emittance growth. • The IQMs might be a reasonable cost solution to these needs. • What has been achieved in terms of R&D or Prototyping on the gadget/idea in the past (within the context of a full PD)? • 325 MHz versions of these devices have been design, constructed, and tested. 1.3 GHz version is design is being done by commercial vendor and 1.3 GHz phase shifter has been prototyped and tested by TD. • What do we plan to do on the gadget/idea in the present and future (within the context of Meson Front End)? • These devices will be “industrialized” and multi-cavity system operation will be demonstrated in the Meson Front-end system. • What will we learn that can benefit the ILC in terms of Performance, Operation and Cost? • Meson Front-end tests will establish costs, performance, and systems operational issues for these devices.

  5. Technical Synergy: Electromagnetic SCRF Tuner • Why was the gadget/idea introduced for the PD Project? • Novel idea to use electromagnetic tuner. SC C-type iron dominated magnet having 10 mm air gap and field 1 Tesla. Inside the gap is a superconducting coil which is capable of moving +/- 1 mm and producing a longitudinal force of +/- 1500 N. • This static force applied to the SCRF cavity flanges provides long term cavity geometry tuning to normal frequency. • The same coil powered by AC 1 kHz current waveform provides 3 mm moving for fast cavity tuning for compensation of RF Lorentz detuning and microphonic effects. • Special superconducting bucking coils substantially reduce the magnet system fringing field up to acceptable for SCRF cavity operation level. • How will the gadget/idea benefit the ILC? • No mechanical moving part. Much lower number of components. Eliminates “blade tuner” and potentially eliminates piezoelectric tuners. • What has been achieved in terms of R&D or Prototyping on the gadget/idea in the past (within the context of a full PD)? • Prototype design completed. • What do we plan to do on the gadget/idea in the present and future (within the context of Meson Front End)? • Procure prototype for use on 3rd Harmonic cavities • What will we learn that can benefit the ILC in terms of Performance, Operation and Cost? • Meson Front-end tests will establish costs, performance, and systems operational issues for these devices.

  6. Technical Synergy: b=0.81 cavity Dev. • Why was the gadget/idea introduced for the PD Project? • Use large grain to test higher field. • How will the gadget/idea benefit the ILC? • Same idea • What has been achieved in terms of R&D or Prototyping on the gadget/idea in the past (within the context of a full PD)? • 3 single cell cavities • What do we plan to do on the gadget/idea in the present and future (within the context of Meson Front End)? • Not part of Meson front End. • What will we learn that can benefit the ILC in terms of Performance, Operation and Cost? • Test on performance in vertical stand.

  7. Flux lines in EM Tuner at max current Fringing field in Gauss around EM Tuner is acceptable for SCRF Electromagnetic SCRF Tuner

  8. Electromagnetic SCRF Tuner Test assembly of EM SCRF Tuner • The proposed Electromagnetic Tuner has: • compact design • few moving parts • high reliability • low fabrication cost