CLIC-ILC Collaboration Update. Mike Harrison PAC Meeting, Taipei May 19/20, 2011. The CERN recent medium term (5 year) plan â€“ May 2011 shows high priority for Linear Collider collaboration for the future. The science drivers for the 2011 MTP: â€¦ LHC Opsâ€¦., the fixed target program and â€¦..
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
PAC Meeting, Taipei
May 19/20, 2011
The CERN recent medium term (5 year) plan – May 2011 shows high priority for Linear Collider collaboration for the future
There is a major collaborative activity based on the ATF2 facility. Interaction region beam stabilisation is a huge challenge for CLIC. ATF2 was damaged by the earthquake but is a high priority at KEK to resume operations. A possibly bigger issue is the future program beyond 2012. These is significant interest from CLIC to also continue with this work.
A common beam dump design for both CLIC & ILC is under investigation. A NIM report covering energy deposition, thermal and hydraulic effects, and pressure waves (2D & 3D) by a team from BARC, SLAC, RHUL & U of Manchester is in the offing.
Push-Pull & MDI related joint studies are in progress – see earlier talk by Juan.
This WG is essentially a single group and represents the closest collaborative entity we have at this point. There are using a common approach to safety etc….
ARUP is an engineering consulting firm (London) that John Osborne has been in contact with to do some detector hall work that would apply to both CLIC and ILC. There are currently has four proposals in hand to do various studies:
1. Design study for the detector platform design (CLIC and ILC)
2. Development of a model to study the rock mass behavior in the area of the interaction region (CLIC and potentially ILC)
3. Study of a passive isolation slab design for the main linac tunnels adjacent to the interaction region (CLIC)
4. Review of the interaction region overall layout (CLIC and potentially ILC)
W. Gai, W. Liu/ANL
Positron Generation: Polarization and Yield Calculations:Undulator (ILC): K=0.9, lu=1.5cm, L=100 mAMD: 7T-0.5T in 20cmCapturing RF: 2GHz, 25MV/mTarget: 1.4 cm Titanium Drive Beam Energy: 250 GeV
W. Gai, W. Liu/ANL
Strong synergy and collaboration in the e-cloud CESR-TA program – Mark’s talk
Beam physics – IBS in ultra low E regime. First experimental run
Instrumentation – optical diffraction radiation monitor (beam size) in production
via RHUL/CERN for 2012 installation
IBS simulation with SMAD code with INFN & SLAC
The CLIC/ILC e-cloud collaboration is transforming itself into the global LOWeRING
The Cost & Schedule WG planned activities have been hampered by the lack of a released CLIC cost estimate.
The original plan was to validate the CLIC 3TeV estimate in the Spring of 2011 and the CLIC 500 GeV costs were to be scaled from this number. As the preliminary estimates of power consumption and investment cost are high for the CLIC 3TeV, the decision was taken not to release the cost estimate pending a more precise assessment of the maximum energy of the machine. At this point the plan is to look at CLIC costs by the end of the calendar year.
It is likely that there will be a CLIC 1TeV estimate in addition to that of CLIC 500 GeV
No plans yet for a similar scrutiny of the ILC TDR estimate but presumably there will be.
As reported at the last PAC meeting the General Issues Working Group did
indeed produce an interim report at the end of 2010. The report was formally
presented to the CLIC Collaboration Board and ILCSC in February.
The main recommendations of the report followed the outline given to the PAC
General Issues Working Group – reply (to the interim report) from Steiner Stapnes, heavily paraphrased
General Issues Working Group – reply (to the interim report) from Jon Bagger (still in progress)
The official response from the ILCSC is still in progress so there are no direct quotes. Generally Jon singled out similar recommendations to Steiner.
Jon took exception to the aspects of the medium term schedule developed by the WG in spite of the caveats given. Schedules (that show construction start or project decision points) are very sensitive and the WG will be more circumspect in any future reports ….. I think.
Topics in green - another interim
report in 2011
Topics in blue - the final report in
The Linear Collider collaboration is working at the grass roots level. We may tweak the organisational structure a little (i.e. create one)
The General Issues Working Group does appear to have a legitimate role in the collaborative process.
The ~2012 co-incidence between the EU strategy report, the CLIC CDR, the GDE TDR, and the LHC first physics run could certainly change the landscape in a significant way.
There is evident interest on both sides of continuing to develop the LC collaboration in the future, post GDE. We will need to consider how to do this soon.