1 / 16

The 2mrad horizontal crossing angle IR layout for the ILC

The 2mrad horizontal crossing angle IR layout for the ILC. Rob Appleby Daresbury Laboratory MDI workshop at SLAC - 07/01/05 D. Angal-Kalinin (DL), P. Bambade, B. Mouton (Orsay), O. Napoly, J. Payet (Saclay). Could this be used for the ILC?. Rationale.

Download Presentation

The 2mrad horizontal crossing angle IR layout for the ILC

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. The 2mrad horizontal crossing angle IR layout for the ILC Rob Appleby Daresbury Laboratory MDI workshop at SLAC - 07/01/05 D. Angal-Kalinin (DL), P. Bambade, B. Mouton (Orsay), O. Napoly, J. Payet (Saclay)

  2. Could this be used for the ILC?

  3. Rationale • (cold ILC bunch-spacing  no multi-bunch kink instability) • • only ~15% luminosity loss without crab-crossing (2 mrad) • • correction possible without cavities exploiting the natural • ’ in the local chromatic correction scheme used • • no miniature SC final doublet needed • • no strong electrostatic separators needed, and no septum • • both beams only in last QD  more freedom in optics • • negligible effects on physics • • spent beam diagnostics may be easier compared to head-on (see CARE/ELAN Document 2004-20)

  4. Possible doublet parameters for 0.5-1 TeV SC QD (r  35mm) 214-228 T/m warm QF (r ~ 10mm) 140-153 T/m 1-1.9m 3m < 2 mrad l*=4.1m ~ 6 mrad 1.3-2.3m  optical transfer R22 ~ 2.84 from IP to QD exit to beam diagnostics (consistent with global parameter sets as in TESLA TDR)

  5. LHC NbTi IR quads • gradient for 0.5 TeV : 215 T/m, • radius  35mm (effective = 31mm) • higher gradients are studied for LHC upgrades using NbTi(Ta), Nb3Sn Tolerable beam power losses in SC QD local & integral LHC spec: 0.4 mW/g & 5 W/m US-cold design parameters assumed at IP Ne  2 1010 per bunch x=543(489) nm y=5.7(4) nm z=0.3 mm Ebeam = 250(500) GeV x=15(24.2) mm y=0.4 mm

  6. Beamstrahlung clearance at QF Calculated need of  0.5mrad around beam direction at IP in realistic beam conditions & beam pipe with r = 10mm in QF Horizontal cone half-opening angle Vertical cone half-opening angle CARE/ELAN document 2004-21 (A+B) 0.5 TeV doublet  c  1.7mrad 1 TeV doublet  c  1.6mrad

  7. Beam power losses in QD without beam size effect with beam size effect withbeam size effect Compton tail Beamstrahlung tail 1 TeV doublet for Ne  2 1010 perbunch 0.5 TeV doublet 0.5 TeV using 1 TeV doublet 1 TeV doublet for Ne  1010 per bunch

  8. Beamstrahlung extraction Simultaneous charged beam and beamstrahlung extraction feasible at 0.5 TeV (2mrad) Harder at 1 TeV - c=1.6mrad seems favoured (benefit from SCQ grad. R+D) incoming, outgoing and beamstrahlung close together at QF  plan common beampipe, with separation later

  9. Clearance at QF for synchrotron radiation emitted in QD & QF x,y = core (1-) photons at QF (estimated from CS paras.) (x - c zQF)2  x2 + y2  y2 = 1  need to collimate to nx,yx,y nx,y=5.9, 49 • can increase c • specially shape QF magnet poles • use smaller beam pipe radius If the photon rate reflected off QF and transmitted back to the VD results in too tight collimation requirements (recent work by T. Murayama  OK) IP z

  10. Luminosity loss without crab crossing L/L0 ~ 0.85 geometric formula  0.88 c[mrad]

  11. Extraction line for disrupted beam • Transport spent beam with controlled losses, both under disrupted and undisrupted conditions. • Constant geometry up to 1 TeV  use 1 TeV doublet design • Diagnostics on disrupted beam • Compton polarimeter (need chicane and zero net bend) • Energy measurement (energy chicane) • WISRD-style spectrometer • image beam Choose 10W in QD, requiring c=1.6mrad Study for 1 TeV machine and Ne=2 1010 (hardest case!) Extraction line geometry fixed: R22c=4.544mrad

  12. Initial achromat to cancel dispersion • Off-axis beam in QD produces horizontally dispersed beam • Initial extraction line achromat designed to cancel this • Horizontally focussing quad QFX produces  phase advance QFX very close to incoming beamline (50mm) use current-sheet quadrupole and 8m drift QD->QFX • BPT=1.3T (g=26 T/m) • aperture radius 5cm • l=5.8m (1 TeV) • Designed and costed for TESLA TDR (2001-21)

  13. Initial achromat to cancel dispersion II • Power loss for aperture r=5cm, scaling r • For 1 TeV, lose 3.1kW for =1, 350W for =1.5 and 69kW for =0.5 • Ne=1 1010, lose 10W; 500 GeV 80W (=1) • Use Tungsten collimator  need to check VXD backsplash • QFX becomes weaker doublet; reduce over focussing • Achromat completed by 14m drift and 2.5mrad bend • Inherent flexibility - optimise strengths, lengths and apertures r QFX

  14. Linear dispersion for the 1 TeV lattice  point-focus and chicane "bend back" achromat

  15. -functions for the 1 TeV lattice  point-focus and chicane achromat "bend back"

  16. Some on-going studies • Increase BeamCAL aperture to 2cm to relax collimation? K. Büsser: rate in VXD increases - origin from inside of BeamCal or QD. Reduce by High Z material on BeamCAL and (early) QD surface? • Further study of post-IP beam transport beyond QFX to limit beam losses to acceptable levels and allow post-IP beam instrumentation. Possible reduction using chromatic correction scheme; inclusion of the detailed B field map in the half-quadrupole QFX • Feasibility of collimator for kW power loss for the case of TeV machine - backgrounds in the detector? • Beam dumps? incoming beam to -dump separation 0.62m, -dump to disrupted beam separation 0.54m

More Related