Transverse Damping Requirements

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
REPHASING TESTS DURING THE TWO BEAM IMPEDANCE MD P. Baudrenghien, J. Noirjean, T. Mastoridis 10/26/2012LSWG meeting 1 Oct 7 th,18:00 – Oct 8 th, 04:00.
Advertisements

Elias Métral, 1st ICE meeting, 14/07/2010 /191 STATUS OF THE LHC INSTABILITIES E. Métral, N. Mounet and B. Salvant E. Métral, N. Mounet and B. Salvant.
LHC progress with beam & plans. Of note since last time Transverse damper Beta beating in the ramp Collimation set-up at 450 GeV & validation LBDS – systematic.
AB-ABP/LHC Injector Synchrotrons Section CERN, Giovanni Rumolo 1 Final results of the E-Cloud Instability MDs at the SPS (26 and 55 GeV/c) G.
H. Bartosik, K. Cornelis, A. Guerrero, B. Mikulek, G. Rumolo, Y. Papaphilippou, B. Salvant, E. Shaposhnikova June 16 th, 2011.
Elias Métral, LHC Beam Commissioning Working Group meeting, 08/06/2010 /191 SINGLE-BUNCH INSTABILITY STUDIES IN THE LHC AT 3.5 TeV/c Elias Métral, N. Mounet.
Nominal intensity bunches ● First ramp with nominal intensity bunches suffered from an instability appearing around 1.8 TeV. ● Nominal intensity bunches.
Machine development - results and plans – critical results, what’s to be done? R. Assmann 15/07/2011 R. Assmann for the LHC MD coordination team (R. Assmann,
Injection Energy Review D. Schulte. Introduction Will review the injection energy So could answer the following questions: Which injection energy can.
Elias Métral, SPSU Study Group and Task Force on SPS Upgrade meeting, 25/03/2010 /311 TMCI Intensity Threshold for LHC Bunch(es) in the SPS u Executive.
Elias Métral, LHC Beam Commissioning Working Group meeting, 30/11/2010 /241 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS FROM INSTABILITY MEASUREMENTS DURING THE 75ns AND 50ns.
Beam-Beam head-on Limit J. Barranco, X. Buffat, T. Pieloni, C. Tambasco, J. Qiang, K. Ohmi, M. Crouch for the Beam-Beam team BI BSRT Team George and Enrico.
Criteria for dynamic aperture limits and impact of the multipolar errors: summary of the simulations with beam-beam for levelling scenarios at 5 and 7.5x10.
Cryo back at 17:30 Beam back at 19:00 IR2 aperture until ~03:00 Since then no beam from the SPS:  Connector problem on MKD  Connector eroded, needs to.
Progress with Beam Report to LMC, Machine Coordination W10: Mike Lamont – Ralph Assmann Thanks to other machine coordinators, EIC’s, operators,
Elias Métral, LHC collimation working group meeting, 17/07/061/26 E. Métral for the RLC team LATEST ESTIMATES OF COLLIMATOR IMPEDANCE EFFECTS u Reminder:
Crossing Schemes Considerations and Beam-Beam Work plan T. Pieloni, J. Barranco, X. Buffat, W. Herr.
Transverse Stability Simulations with Linear Coupling in PyHEADTAIL X. Buffat, L. R. Carver, S. Fartoukh, K. Li, E. Métral, T. Persson, B. Salvant, M.
Collimation Aspects for Crab Cavities? R. Assmann, CERN Thanks to Daniel Wollmann for presenting this talk on my behalf (criticism and complaints please.
(Towards a) Luminosity model for LHC and HL-LHC F. Antoniou, M. Hostettler, Y. Papaphilippou, G. Papotti Acknowledgements: Beam-Beam and Luminosity studies.
Benchmarking Headtail with e-cloud observations with LHC 25ns beam H. Bartosik, W. Höfle, G. Iadarola, Y. Papaphilippou, G. Rumolo.
Pros and Cons of the 200 MHz System G. Iadarola, K. Li, E. Metral, G. Rumolo Thanks to: L. Medina, J. Esteban Mueller, B. Salvant, E. Shaposhnikova, R.
Tuesday 7 th August - morning 07:10 Reinjection after loss of fill 2920 to UFO near ALICE  26 pb -1 in 1h16m; peak lumi 6.4e33 cm -2 s -1 08:10 dump at.
A preliminary overview on the 2014 Scrubbing Run II The scrubbing team, i.e. H. Bartosik, G. Iadarola, K. Li, L. Mether, A. Romano, G. Rumolo, B. Salvant,
Fabio Follin Delphine Jacquet For the LHC operation team
INTRODUCTION FOR THIS (2nd) REVIEW ON LPL (LHC PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS) => DURING RUN II ( ) E. Métral Follow-up of (1st) review on LPL during.
Y.Papaphilippou Thanks to
Scenarios for 2017 and 2018 Thanks to Gianni, Fanouria, Gianluigi, Dario, Stephane, Elias, Michi, Jamie, Christoph, Rogelio, Mirko, Riccardo, Hannes,
LHC Wire Scanner Calibration
Joint LIU / HLLHC day -15 October 2015
Floating MD week 28 summary
Ralph Assmann, Giulia Papotti, Frank Zimmermann 25 August 2011
M.Fitterer, A.Patapenka, A.Valishev (FNAL)
Cryo Problem MD Planning Tue (1.11.) C B Day Time MD MP Tue 01:00
Space charge studies at the SPS
LEIR IMPEDANCE AND INSTABILITY MEASUREMENTS
Summary of the dedicated MD on July 4th 50ns in SPS with nominal and low γt optics – transverse aspects T. Argyropoulos, H. Bartosik, T. Bohl, A. Burov,
Longitudinal beam parameters and stability
Wire, flat beams and beam-beam MDs in 2017
Proposals for 2015 impedance-related MD requests for PSB and SPS
Sergey Antipov, Nicolo Biancacci, and david amorim
Saturday 21st April 00:33 Interlock during ramp on BLM HV
A. Al-khateeb, O. Chorniy, R. Hasse, V. Kornilov, O. Boine-F
Update on the HiLumi/LIU parameters and performance ramp up after LS2
MD2490 Measurement of the TMCI threshold at flat-top
Acknowledgments: LIU-PT members and deputies, H. Bartosik
MD2490: Measurement of the TMCI Threshold at Flat-Top
LHC Morning Meeting - G. Arduini
Week 46 Week 46: Machine coordinators: Roger Bailey – Gianluigi Arduini Main aims of the week: Stable beams with ions Scheduled stop for ion source refill.
Wednesday /Thursday 09-11:00 Verification of the LSS6 interlocked BPMs: took longer to fill due to some problems with RF cavities in the PS. In the mean.
Wednesday Morning 8: :30 end of fill study - octupole polarity inversion (Elias, Tatiana, Alexey, Georges, …): Goal: study the effect of the.
Thursday 17th May 01:11 Fill #2633 dump in squeeze arc circulator load channel Ad1B 03:16 Fill #2644 Stable beams, lumi 5.2e33 cm-2s-1 04:38 Dumped by.
Summary of Week 16 G. Arduini, J. Wenninger
Chromaticity can make a difference…
04-05/08/2010 End of physics at ~11:00 after 18.5 hours ~120 nb-1.
Friday morning 10:30 Optics measurements and corrections.
Saturday – Morning 7:36 beams dumped
Saturday 7th May Sat – Sun night
(on behalf of the LHC team)
Summary of week 19 Machine Coordinators: G. Arduini, M. Lamont Main aim: Luminosity production.
LHC impedance: Comparison between phase 1 and IR3MBC – follow-up
News on TMCI in the SPS: Injecting high intensity bunches
Thursday 26th July 13:21 Fill 2880 beam dumped
LHC collimation review follow-up Impedance with IR3MBC option & comparison with phase 1 tight settings N. Mounet, B. Salvant and E. Métral Acknowledgements:
Wednesday h18: 228b fill lost just before start of ramp.
LHC Morning Meeting - G. Arduini
Friday h55 Stable beams. Fill #1841. Lumi ~1.2e33.
Another Immortal Fill….
Friday During the night from Thursday to Friday: by mistake, SPS longitudinal blow-up was not active  Smaller transverse emittance from the.
Saturday 29th October Friday during IP2 1 m squeeze test
Presentation transcript:

Transverse Damping Requirements Elias Métral for the instability team (and BE-ABP-HSC section) 6th HL-LHC Collaboration Meeting, Paris, 15/11/2016

Contents E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Contents Introduction E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Predicted beam stability without e-cloud Contents Introduction Predicted beam stability without e-cloud E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Predicted beam stability without e-cloud Contents Introduction Predicted beam stability without e-cloud Highest bunch brightness reached so far E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Predicted beam stability without e-cloud Contents Introduction Predicted beam stability without e-cloud Highest bunch brightness reached so far News on destabilising effect of linear coupling E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Predicted beam stability without e-cloud Contents Introduction Predicted beam stability without e-cloud Highest bunch brightness reached so far News on destabilising effect of linear coupling Is leveling by transverse offset a viable option? E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Predicted beam stability without e-cloud Contents Introduction Predicted beam stability without e-cloud Highest bunch brightness reached so far News on destabilising effect of linear coupling Is leveling by transverse offset a viable option? E-cloud induced instabilities E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Predicted beam stability without e-cloud Contents Introduction Predicted beam stability without e-cloud Highest bunch brightness reached so far News on destabilising effect of linear coupling Is leveling by transverse offset a viable option? E-cloud induced instabilities Conclusion E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Introduction From the Joint LARP CM26 / Hi-Lumi Meeting, SLAC, 19/05/2016 E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Introduction From the Joint LARP CM26 / Hi-Lumi Meeting, SLAC, 19/05/2016 Linear coupling can have a destabilising effect on beam stability: simulations confirmed by a dedicated study with a single bunch E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Introduction From the Joint LARP CM26 / Hi-Lumi Meeting, SLAC, 19/05/2016 Linear coupling can have a destabilising effect on beam stability: simulations confirmed by a dedicated study with a single bunch Beam instability / stability with a transverse offset should be measured (beam stability predicted with sufficient damper) E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Introduction From the Joint LARP CM26 / Hi-Lumi Meeting, SLAC, 19/05/2016 Linear coupling can have a destabilising effect on beam stability: simulations confirmed by a dedicated study with a single bunch Beam instability / stability with a transverse offset should be measured (beam stability predicted with sufficient damper) Without e-cloud, a sufficient margin should exist for beam stability E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Introduction From the Joint LARP CM26 / Hi-Lumi Meeting, SLAC, 19/05/2016 Linear coupling can have a destabilising effect on beam stability: simulations confirmed by a dedicated study with a single bunch Beam instability / stability with a transverse offset should be measured (beam stability predicted with sufficient damper) Without e-cloud, a sufficient margin should exist for beam stability E-cloud is the main worry E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Introduction From the Joint LARP CM26 / Hi-Lumi Meeting, SLAC, 19/05/2016 Linear coupling can have a destabilising effect on beam stability: simulations confirmed by a dedicated study with a single bunch Beam instability / stability with a transverse offset should be measured (beam stability predicted with sufficient damper) Without e-cloud, a sufficient margin should exist for beam stability E-cloud is the main worry What is the role of e-cloud in the instabilities observed since 2015? E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Introduction From the Joint LARP CM26 / Hi-Lumi Meeting, SLAC, 19/05/2016 Linear coupling can have a destabilising effect on beam stability: simulations confirmed by a dedicated study with a single bunch Beam instability / stability with a transverse offset should be measured (beam stability predicted with sufficient damper) Without e-cloud, a sufficient margin should exist for beam stability E-cloud is the main worry What is the role of e-cloud in the instabilities observed since 2015? Can simulations explain the observations? E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Introduction From the Joint LARP CM26 / Hi-Lumi Meeting, SLAC, 19/05/2016 Linear coupling can have a destabilising effect on beam stability: simulations confirmed by a dedicated study with a single bunch Beam instability / stability with a transverse offset should be measured (beam stability predicted with sufficient damper) Without e-cloud, a sufficient margin should exist for beam stability E-cloud is the main worry What is the role of e-cloud in the instabilities observed since 2015? Can simulations explain the observations? What will happen for HL-LHC? E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Predicted beam stability without e-cloud E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Predicted beam stability without e-cloud Nominal collimator settings for HL-LHC parameters and machine components for the present baseline: 2 CC/beam/IP side and low-impedance collimators in LSS7. Assumed here DQW cavities and machine at the end of the pre-squeeze => Further work has been done to reduce the impedance of a remaining HOM at 920 MHz by a factor ~ 20 (new table from 21-10-2016 used) E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Predicted beam stability without e-cloud Nominal collimator settings for HL-LHC parameters and machine components for the present baseline: 2 CC/beam/IP side and low-impedance collimators in LSS7. Assumed here DQW cavities and machine at the end of the pre-squeeze => Further work has been done to reduce the impedance of a remaining HOM at 920 MHz by a factor ~ 20 (new table from 21-10-2016 used) Beam is stable for a current in the Landau octupoles (LOF) < ~ 300 A, what ever the sign and even if the transverse tails would be cut down to ~ 3 σ E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Courtesy of N. Biancacci LOF < 0 Courtesy of N. Biancacci E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Courtesy of N. Biancacci LOF < 0 Courtesy of N. Biancacci LOF > 0 E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Highest bunch brightness reached so far E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Highest bunch brightness reached so far The HL-LHC bunch brightness has already been reached! => In 2016 at 6.5 TeV, bunches of ~ 1.4 times higher brightness than for HL-LHC were brought into collision with very good lifetime (burn-off dominated) E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Highest bunch brightness reached so far The HL-LHC bunch brightness has already been reached! => In 2016 at 6.5 TeV, bunches of ~ 1.4 times higher brightness than for HL-LHC were brought into collision with very good lifetime (burn-off dominated) Parameter LHC Energy [TeV] 7 Bunch population [1011] 1.15 Transv. emittance [μm] 3.75 Brightness [1011 / μm] 0.31 E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Highest bunch brightness reached so far The HL-LHC bunch brightness has already been reached! => In 2016 at 6.5 TeV, bunches of ~ 1.4 times higher brightness than for HL-LHC were brought into collision with very good lifetime (burn-off dominated) Parameter LHC HL-LHC Energy [TeV] 7 Bunch population [1011] 1.15 2.2 Transv. emittance [μm] 3.75 2.5 Brightness [1011 / μm] 0.31 0.88 E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Highest bunch brightness reached so far The HL-LHC bunch brightness has already been reached! => In 2016 at 6.5 TeV, bunches of ~ 1.4 times higher brightness than for HL-LHC were brought into collision with very good lifetime (burn-off dominated) Parameter LHC HL-LHC LHC 2016 Energy [TeV] 7 6.5 Bunch population [1011] 1.15 2.2 1.9 Transv. emittance [μm] 3.75 2.5 1.5 Brightness [1011 / μm] 0.31 0.88 1.27 Factor 4.1! E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Highest bunch brightness reached so far The HL-LHC bunch brightness has already been reached! => In 2016 at 6.5 TeV, bunches of ~ 1.4 times higher brightness than for HL-LHC were brought into collision with very good lifetime (burn-off dominated) Parameter LHC HL-LHC LHC 2016 Delta [%] Energy [TeV] 7 6.5 - 7 Bunch population [1011] 1.15 2.2 1.9 - 14 Transv. emittance [μm] 3.75 2.5 1.5 - 40 Brightness [1011 / μm] 0.31 0.88 1.27 + 44 Factor 4.1! E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Courtesy of X. Buffat HIGHLIGHT! E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

News on destabilising effect of linear coupling E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

News on destabilising effect of linear coupling The worry from 2012 (i.e. without e-cloud) has been partly dissipated with the discovery of the effect of linear coupling: see talk at the last HiLumi meeting. Since then, 2 additional info going in the same direction E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

News on destabilising effect of linear coupling The worry from 2012 (i.e. without e-cloud) has been partly dissipated with the discovery of the effect of linear coupling: see talk at the last HiLumi meeting. Since then, 2 additional info going in the same direction Instability in physics with 600 bunches disappeared after coupling correction => A coupling (closest tune approach) of ~ 0.005 is bad! E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

News on destabilising effect of linear coupling The worry from 2012 (i.e. without e-cloud) has been partly dissipated with the discovery of the effect of linear coupling: see talk at the last HiLumi meeting. Since then, 2 additional info going in the same direction Instability in physics with 600 bunches disappeared after coupling correction => A coupling (closest tune approach) of ~ 0.005 is bad! A measurement from 2012 revealed an important coupling in October (~ 0.01) E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Sunday 25/09/16, Fill #5332: Instability with 600 bunches E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Sunday 25/09/16, Fill #5332: Instability with 600 bunches LOF were at 470 A, Q’ ~ 15 units and nominal damper E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Sunday 25/09/16, Fill #5332: Instability with 600 bunches LOF were at 470 A, Q’ ~ 15 units and nominal damper E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

β* E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

β* B1H BBQ activity B1V BBQ activity E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Bump in |C-| β* B1H BBQ activity B1V BBQ activity E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Qx _FB_Trim Bump in |C-| Qy _FB_Trim β* B1H BBQ activity B1V BBQ activity E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Similar picture as during our dedicated study on linear coupling Qx _FB_Trim Bump in |C-| Qy _FB_Trim β* B1H BBQ activity B1V BBQ activity E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Linear coupling was then corrected E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Linear coupling was then corrected E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Could linear coupling have played an important role in the 2011-2012 End Of Squeeze Instability? E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Could linear coupling have played an important role in the 2011-2012 End Of Squeeze Instability? Info from RogelioT: In 2012, very few linear coupling measurements took place at 60 cm Commissioning in March => |C-| ≤ 0.002: OK E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Could linear coupling have played an important role in the 2011-2012 End Of Squeeze Instability? Info from RogelioT: In 2012, very few linear coupling measurements took place at 60 cm Commissioning in March => |C-| ≤ 0.002: OK Measurement during an MD on 12/10/2012: Huge coupling (~ 0.01)! Courtesy of R. Tomas E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

|C-| ≈ 0.01 (before correction) Could linear coupling have played an important role in the 2011-2012 End Of Squeeze Instability? Info from RogelioT: In 2012, very few linear coupling measurements took place at 60 cm Commissioning in March => |C-| ≤ 0.002: OK Measurement during an MD on 12/10/2012: Huge coupling (~ 0.01)! Courtesy of R. Tomas |C-| ≈ 0.01 (before correction) α |C-| E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

|C-| ≈ 0.01 (before correction) Could linear coupling have played an important role in the 2011-2012 End Of Squeeze Instability? Info from RogelioT: In 2012, very few linear coupling measurements took place at 60 cm Commissioning in March => |C-| ≤ 0.002: OK Measurement during an MD on 12/10/2012: Huge coupling (~ 0.01)! => Was corrected for the MD but was not put in the nominal cycle after the measurement… Courtesy of R. Tomas |C-| ≈ 0.01 (before correction) α |C-| E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Could linear coupling have played an important role in the 2011-2012 End Of Squeeze Instability? Info from RogelioT: In 2012, very few linear coupling measurements took place at 60 cm Commissioning in March => |C-| ≤ 0.002: OK Measurement during an MD on 12/10/2012: Huge coupling (~ 0.01)! => Was corrected for the MD but was not put in the nominal cycle after the measurement… There was no request from our side at that time! Courtesy of R. Tomas |C-| ≈ 0.01 (before correction) α |C-| E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Is leveling by transverse offset a viable option? E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Is leveling by transverse offset a viable option? The stability of the beams is reduced when colliding with an offset, BUT the model predicts sufficient margins with current machine and beam parameters E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Is leveling by transverse offset a viable option? The stability of the beams is reduced when colliding with an offset, BUT the model predicts sufficient margins with current machine and beam parameters E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016 Courtesy of X. Buffat

Is leveling by transverse offset a viable option? The stability of the beams is reduced when colliding with an offset, BUT the model predicts sufficient margins with current machine and beam parameters E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016 Courtesy of X. Buffat

Is leveling by transverse offset a viable option? No instabilities were observed in dedicated tests with reduced octupole current and chromaticity E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Is leveling by transverse offset a viable option? No instabilities were observed in dedicated tests with reduced octupole current and chromaticity A strong instability was observed when the damper was off (as predicted) E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Is leveling by transverse offset a viable option? No instabilities were observed in dedicated tests with reduced octupole current and chromaticity A strong instability was observed when the damper was off (as predicted) Some instabilities observed in ADJUST in the vertical plane of B1 during physics fill and some studies remain to be understood… E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

E-cloud induced instabilities E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016 K. Li

E-cloud induced instabilities INJECTION: In 2016, moving to BCMS beam (with smaller transverse emittances), the beam became unstable at injection => Could be stabilised by increasing the current in the Landau octupoles: LOF increased from 20 A (knob = - 1.5) to 40 A (knob = - 3) E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016 K. Li

E-cloud induced instabilities INJECTION: In 2016, moving to BCMS beam (with smaller transverse emittances), the beam became unstable at injection => Could be stabilised by increasing the current in the Landau octupoles: LOF increased from 20 A (knob = - 1.5) to 40 A (knob = - 3) E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016 Courtesy of K. Li K. Li

E-cloud induced instabilities Can this be explained by simulations? E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016 K. Li

E-cloud induced instabilities Can this be explained by simulations? E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016 Courtesy of K. Li K. Li

E-cloud induced instabilities Can this be explained by simulations? E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016 Courtesy of K. Li K. Li

E-cloud induced instabilities Can this be explained by simulations? E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016 Courtesy of K. Li K. Li

E-cloud induced instabilities Summary E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016 K. Li

E-cloud induced instabilities Summary E-cloud (from dipoles only) could explain the observations in V-plane E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016 K. Li

E-cloud induced instabilities Summary E-cloud (from dipoles only) could explain the observations in V-plane However, the H-plane should be stable => Simulations ongoing adding e-cloud in quadrupoles, etc. E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016 K. Li

E-cloud induced instabilities STABLE BEAM: In 2016, signs of e-cloud induced instability in stable beam with batches of 72 bunches for Q’ ~ 15 E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

E-cloud induced instabilities STABLE BEAM: In 2016, signs of e-cloud induced instability in stable beam with batches of 72 bunches for Q’ ~ 15 Only vertical (B1&B2) At the end of trains of 72 bunches Emittance BU by a factor ~ 2 No beam loss E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

E-cloud induced instabilities STABLE BEAM: In 2016, signs of e-cloud induced instability in stable beam with batches of 72 bunches for Q’ ~ 15 Only vertical (B1&B2) At the end of trains of 72 bunches Emittance BU by a factor ~ 2 No beam loss E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

E-cloud induced instabilities STABLE BEAM: In 2016, signs of e-cloud induced instability in stable beam with batches of 72 bunches for Q’ ~ 15 Only vertical (B1&B2) At the end of trains of 72 bunches Emittance BU by a factor ~ 2 No beam loss => Was cured by increasing the vertical chromaticity (+7) in stable beam (to ~ 22) E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

E-cloud induced instabilities Possible mechanism? E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016 K. Li

E-cloud induced instabilities Possible mechanism? E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016 K. Li

E-cloud induced instabilities Possible mechanism? Huge simulation work which seems to confirm the predicted effect Courtesy of G. Iadarola and A. Romano E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016 K. Li

E-cloud induced instabilities Possible mechanism? Huge simulation work which seems to confirm the predicted effect If confirmed, should not be a problem for HL-LHC Courtesy of G. Iadarola and A. Romano E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016 K. Li

Conclusion E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Impedance induced instabilities Conclusion Impedance induced instabilities E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Impedance induced instabilities Conclusion Impedance induced instabilities ~ As predicted (or even better) E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Impedance induced instabilities Conclusion Impedance induced instabilities ~ As predicted (or even better) A sufficient margin should exist E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Impedance induced instabilities Conclusion Impedance induced instabilities ~ As predicted (or even better) A sufficient margin should exist 2 mechanisms are critical for beam stability (from both simulations and measurements) E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Impedance induced instabilities Conclusion Impedance induced instabilities ~ As predicted (or even better) A sufficient margin should exist 2 mechanisms are critical for beam stability (from both simulations and measurements) Linear coupling between the transverse planes => OK when corrected (at the ~ 0.001 level) E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Impedance induced instabilities Conclusion Impedance induced instabilities ~ As predicted (or even better) A sufficient margin should exist 2 mechanisms are critical for beam stability (from both simulations and measurements) Linear coupling between the transverse planes => OK when corrected (at the ~ 0.001 level) E-cloud => From injection till stable beam! E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Conclusion In case of issues with transverse instabilities in the future, other remedies exist and are being studied E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Conclusion In case of issues with transverse instabilities in the future, other remedies exist and are being studied Q” E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Conclusion In case of issues with transverse instabilities in the future, other remedies exist and are being studied Q” RFQ E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Conclusion In case of issues with transverse instabilities in the future, other remedies exist and are being studied Q” RFQ Wide-band feedback system E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016

Thank you for your attention! E. Métral, Paris, 15/11/2016