Transcript ABP Staff Plan Updating

Thursday Summary of Working Group I
Initial questions I:
3) Hardware design issues:
Question / Topic
goal of presentation
magnet lifetime issues
how scales the magnet lifetime with radiation and L
general magnet performance issues
what is the peak coil field in a dipole for various SC materials
Ranko Ostojic or
what is the peak coil field in a quadrupole for various SC materials
Louis Walckiers
Potential speaker
how does the peak coil field scale with the heat load and L
cos-theta magnet design options
how much power can be cooled at 4.5 K
Ranko Ostojic or
how much power can be cooled at 1.9K
Louis Walckiers
peak field estimates for this design type
field quality estimates for this design type
present questions still to be addressed in future studies
2-in-1 magnet design issues
what is the minimum required aperture spacing for a 2-in-1 quadrupole
Ranko Ostojic or
design
can a 2-in-1 quadrupole design feature a central hole for the neutron flux
Louis Walckiers
LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso
Oliver Brüning
1
Thursday Summary of Working Group I
Initial questions II:
3) Hardware design issues:
Question / Topic
goal of presentation
Potential speaker
race track magnet design options
how much power can be cooled at 4.5 K
Rama Calaga &
how much power can be cooled at 1.9 K
peak field estimates for this design type
Peter McIntyre on structured cable
field quality estimates for this design type
magnets with internal cooling
present questions still to be addressed in future studies
levitating magnet design options
how much power can be cooled at 4.5 K
Peter McIntire
how much power can be cooled at 1.9 K
peak field estimates for this design type
field quality estimates for this design type
present questions still to be addressed in future studies
Issues related to crossing angles
what is the required transverse field for crab cavities?
Frank Zimmermann
how does the required longitudinal space of a Crab cavity scale with the
required peak transverse field?
how does the noise excitation in a Crab cavity scale with the required
peak field?
what are the options for correcting the dispersion due to a large x-ing
minimum required x-ing angle from long-range beam-beam point of view
Related questions given to the WG by the Work Shop Organizers
need of technological improvement of the triplet magnets
layout and compatibility with the existing experimental devices
LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso
Oliver Brüning
2
Thursday Summary of Working Group I
main points from morning session for working group I:
-create a repository for different layout configurations and
optics solutions  common data base for future studies
 common reference for future discussions
 will be discussed on Friday
-interesting modular proposal for maximizing F by additional
dipole inside experiment  all insertion scenarios benefit
 should be pursued independently of final IR design
-NiTi is not a viable solution for IR upgrade  is this true for
all IR layout and optics proposals (e.g. low gradient triplet
solution)?  will be discussed on Friday
LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso
Oliver Brüning
3
Thursday Summary of Working Group I
main points from Peter McIntyre’s presentation I:
-two options for dealing with the increased heat load inside
the triplet magnets:
1) construct more robust triplet magnets that can tolerate
the increased peak heat load
2) reduce the peak heat load with an upgrade of the TAS
absorber:
LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso
Oliver Brüning
4
Thursday Summary of Working Group I
main points from Peter McIntyre’s presentation II:
1) construct more robust triplet magnets that can tolerate
the increased peak heat load
 structured cable design with Ni3Sn and Inconel 718 jacket
Iron less quadrupoles for Q1 with 340 T/m; 40mm aperture;
and expected heat tolerances of > 50 W/m
Strong mechanical support and low inductance for “large”
quench induced voltages
Confidence that Ni3Sn is matured technology by 2010?
 Disuccion: Inconel jacket could also be used with NiTi?
LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso
Oliver Brüning
5
Design Q1 using structured cable
6-on-1 cabling of Nb3Sn strand around thin-wall inconel X750 spring tube
Draw within a thicker inconel 718 jacket
Interior is not impregnated – only region between cables in winding
Volumetric cooling to handle volumetric heating from particle losses
Thursday Summary of Working Group I
main points from Peter McIntyre’s presentation III:
2) reduce the peak heat load with an upgrade of the TAS
absorber:
 levitated dipole coil design with opening at room temperature
B = 8.7 T at 4.5 K; Ni3Sn only at inner coil NiTi otherwise
 interesting magnet design for a magnetic TAS option
LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso
Oliver Brüning
7
D1: levitated-pole dipole
8.7 T
4.5 K
Cold iron pole piece, warm iron flux return.
Cancel Lorentz forces on coils, pole steel.
Thursday Summary of Working Group I
main points from Rama Calaga’s presentation:
-compensate Lorentz force on the coils by using two race
track coils  15 T field for Ni3Sn and 8T for NiTi
-open mid plane and possibility of installing dedicated
absorber material
Interesting option for magnetic TAS design
 Who is following this research up? US-LARP has decided
to suspend dipole R&D and to concentrate on quadrupoles!
LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso
Oliver Brüning
9
OMD Design Challenges
Counteracting large vertical forces between the coils
without any structure appears to be a challenge.
Good field quality maybe a challenging task due to large
midplane gap.
Large Bpeak/Bcenter ratio in magnets with large midplane
gap may reduce operating field.
The optimum design may look totally different.
A True Open Midplane Design
In earlier “OMD designs”, absorbers were placed between the the coils. Secondary
showers from the absorber deposited a large amount of radiation and heat load on the
coils. This problem is fixed in the new design.
Thursday Summary of Working Group I
main points from Frank Zimmermann’s presentation I:
-geometric reduction factor can be reduced with the help of
CRAB cavities (transverse kick  alternative to JPK dipole)
-LHC parameters requires between 4MV (small crossing
angle) and 100 MV voltage for f = 400MHz  800 MHz
-small emittance blowup requires turn-by-turn phase
control of better than 0.01 degrees
-CRAB cavities require sufficient large beam separation
( installation after D2 plus dog leg separation?)
LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso
Oliver Brüning
12
Super-KEKB crab cavity scheme
RF Deflector
( Crab Cavity )
HER
LER
Electrons
Positrons
1.44 MV
Head-on
Collision
Crossing Angle
(11 x 2 m rad.)
1.41 MV
2 crab cavities / beam / IP
1.41 MV
1.44 MV
voltage required for Super-LHC