Ideas and Speculations for the Headon Extraction Line L. Keller Oct. 19, 2006 1.Give up the 3.5 m Separation between the Charged Dump and the Incoming.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
EXTRACTION BEAM LOSS AT 1 TEV CM WITH TDR PARAMETERS Y. Nosochkov, G. White August 25, 2014.
Advertisements

Question from the GDE : Could local “doughnut” type muon spoilers like those in SLC be substituted for the 5 meter magnetized wall? 5m magnetized wall.
Summary of the discussion for the commissioning session 2 nd ATF2 Project Meeting KEK, Tsukuba, Japan 6/ 1/ 2006 T.Okugi (KEK)
Positron Source Update Jim Clarke Deepa Angal-Kalinin James Jones Norbert Collomb At Daresbury Laboratory and Cockroft Institute 21/07/2009.
11 October 2006Basic Layout of LER G. de Rijk1 Basic Layout of LER  The basic idea  VLHC type magnets  LER in the LHC tunnel  Layout  LER experiment.
Zero Degree Extraction using an Electrostatic Separator Take another look at using an electrostatic separator and a weak dipole to allow a zero degree.
Overview of Beam Delivery System Final Focus Optics Collimator Final Doublet Extraction/Dump Others S.Kuroda ( KEK ) MDI meeting at SLAC 1/6/2005.
Shielding Studies using MARS Monte Carlo code Noriaki Nakao (SLAC) Jan. 6, 2005, WORKSHOP Machine-Detector Interface at ILC, SLAC.
Summary of wg2a (BDS and IR) Deepa Angal-Kalinin, Shigeru Kuroda, Andrei Seryi October 21, 2005.
E166 Collaboration J.C. Sheppard SLAC, October, 2003 E166 Background Test Simulations: Overview-what do we need J. C. Sheppard.
Beam Loss in the Extraction Line for 2 mrad Crossing Angle A.Drozhdin, N.Mokhov, X.Yang.
NLC - The Next Linear Collider Project  IR background issues and plans for Snowmass Jeff Gronberg/LLNL Linear Collider Workshop October 25, 2000.
NLC - The Next Linear Collider Project NLC IR Layout and Background Estimates Jeff Gronberg/LLNL For the Beam Delivery Group LCWS - October 25, 2000.
Super-B Factory Workshop January 19-22, 2004 IR Upgrade M. Sullivan 1 PEP-II Interaction Region Upgrade M. Sullivan for the Super-B Factory Workshop Hawaii.
PROBLEM: Radiation Dose Rate in IR2 When IR1 is Operating (and Vice Versa) Muon Dose Rate > 1 mRem/hr for 0.1% Collimated Halo.
IPBI 6 April 05Ken Moffeit Polarimetry Design Updates - Dispersion in upstream chicane - 20mrad extraction line 0.75 mrad beam stay clear location of Synchrotron.
27 June 2006Ken Moffeit1 Comparison of 2mrad and 14/20 mrad extraction lines Ken Moffeit ILC BDS 27 June 06.
Super-B Factory Workshop January 19-22, 2004 Super-B IR design M. Sullivan 1 Interaction Region Design for a Super-B Factory M. Sullivan for the Super-B.
LCWS ’05 Machine Detector Interface Design Updates Tom Markiewicz SLAC 22 March 2005.
CF Constraints to the Strawman BDIR Configuration Tom Markiewicz SLAC 07 January 2005 IR Hall Muon Wall Beam Dump Detector Photon Dump 4m tunnel with “Y”
A.Seryi, Oct. 26, BDS comparison and positron source A.Seryi October 26, 2005 Discussion of BDS and positron source is given in [1] “Comment on.
Status of ongoing studies for comparing 2-mrad and 20-mrad IRs T. Maruyama SLAC.
Beam Delivery System Review of RDR(draft) 1.Overview 2.Beam parameters 3.System description 3.1 diagnostic, tune-up dump, machine protection MPS.
NLC - The Next Linear Collider Project NLC Backgrounds What’s New? Tom Markiewicz LC’99, Frascati, Italy October 1999.
November 07, 2006 Global Design Effort 1 Beam Delivery System updates BDS Area leaders Deepa Angal-Kalinin, Hitoshi Yamamoto, Andrei Seryi Valencia GDE.
Overview of Extraction Line Designs and Issues
ILC BCD Crossing Angle Issues G. A. Blair Royal Holloway Univ. London ECFA ILC Workshop, Vienna 14 th November 2005 Introduction BCD Crossing Angle Rankings.
October 31, BDS Group1 ILC Beam Delivery System “Hybrid” Layout 2006e Release Preliminary M. Woodley.
January 10, 2007M. Woodley (SLAC)1 ILC Beam Delivery System “Interim Working Assumption” 2006e Release European LC Workshop, January , Daresbury.
Si D in 14mrad/14mrad/z=0 ILC T. Markiewicz/SLAC SiD Advisory Group 14 August 2006.
ILC Beam Delivery System / MDI Issues for LCC-phase (~
LCWS2004 Paris 1 Beam background study for GLC Tsukasa Aso, Toyama College of Maritime Technology and GLC Vertex Group H.Aihara, K.Tanabe, Tokyo Univ.
19 July 2006Ken Moffeit1 Comparison of 2mrad and 14/20 mrad extraction lines Ken Moffeit (via Eric Torrence) VLCW06 19 July 06.
1 Overview of Polarimetry Outline of Talk Polarized Physics Machine-Detector Interface Issues Upstream Polarimeter Downstream Polarimeter Ken Moffeit,
Global Design Effort ILC Crab Cavity Overview and requirements Andrei Seryi SLAC on behalf of ILC Beam Delivery and Crab-Cavity design teams Joint BNL/US-LARP/CARE-HHH.
Design status 2 mrad IR Current plan for finalization in 2008 Philip Bambade LAL-Orsay On behalf of: D.Angal-Kalinin, R.Appleby, F.Jackson, D.Toprek (Cockcroft)
Philip Burrows Snowmass 2005: SiD Concept Plenary, 15/8/05 SiD and MDI issues Philip Burrows Queen Mary, University of London Thanks to: Toshiaki Tauchi,
October 20, 2006 Global Design Effort 1 ILC Interaction regions : The GDE perspective Talk based on several talks presented by BDS area leaders Andrei.
17 th November, 2008 LCWS08/ILC08 1 BDS optics and minimal machine study Deepa Angal-Kalinin ASTeC & The Cockcroft Institute Daresbury Laboratory.
Accelerator Science and Technology Centre POST-LINAC BEAM TRANSPORT AND COLLIMATION FOR THE UK’S NEW LIGHT SOURCE PROJECT D. Angal-Kalinin,
1 O. Napoly ECFA-DESY Amsterdam, April 2003 Machine – Detector Interface : what is new since the TDR ? O. Napoly CEA/Saclay.
Manchester Christmas meeting 2006: The ILC interaction region and beyond Rob Appleby Happy New Year everyone!
ILC EXTRACTION LINE TRACKING Y. Nosochkov, E. Marin September 10, 2013.
11/15/20051 Radiation Protection Issues for ILC (not exhaustive) A. Fassò, N. Noriaki, H. Vincke Radiation Physics.
Cherrill Spencer, SLAC. MDI Workshop Jan '05 1 Impact of Crossing Angle Value on Magnets near the IP Overview of several unusual quadrupole designs that.
1 M. Sullivan IR update IR Update M. Sullivan for the 3 rd SuperB workshop SLAC June14-16, 2006.
L. Keller 3/18/02 Beam-Gas-Bremsstrahlung and Coulomb Scattering in the NLC Beam Delivery System Conditions for Calculation: 1. Program is DECAY TURTLE.
Beam Delivery (wg4) update since Snowmass Andrei Seryi for WG4 GDE meeting December 8, 2005 Snowmass 2005 GDE Meeting at INFN-LNF.
BDS/MDI Deepa Angal-Kalinin Andrei Seryi AD&I Meeting, DESY, May 29, 2009.
1 O. Napoly ECFA-DESY Amsterdam, April 2003 Machine – Detector Interface : what is new since the TDR ? O. Napoly CEA/Saclay.
Accelerator WG 5 summary Interaction region, ATF2 and MDI Deepa Angal-Kalinin, Lau Gatignon, Andrei Seryi, Rogelio Tomas IWLC
ILC BDS Commissioning Glen White, SLAC AWLC 2014, Fermilab May 14 th 2014.
MAIN DUMP LINE: BEAM LOSS SIMULATIONS WITH THE TDR PARAMETERS Y. Nosochkov E. Marin, G. White (SLAC) LCWS14 Workshop, Belgrade, October 7, 2014.
Baseline BDS Design Updates Glen White, SLAC Sept. 4, 2014 Ichinoseki, MDI/CFS Meeting.
Design challenges for head-on scheme Deepa Angal-Kalinin Orsay, 19 th October 2006.
Update of the SR studies for the FCCee Interaction Region
M. Sullivan for the SLAC SuperB Workshop Jan , 2009
M. Sullivan International Review Committee November 12-13, 2007
Integration Ideas for the Central Region Some old some new
The Interaction Region
E. Paloni, S. Bettoni, R. Pantaleo, M Biagini, et al.
The small crossing angle layout - where are we and what do we do now?
AD & I : BDS Lattice Design Changes
ILC BDS Emittance Diagnostics: Design and Requirements
The 2mrad horizontal crossing angle IR layout for the ILC
Design status 2 mrad IR Current plan for finalization in 2008
Extract from today’s talk given to DCB
CNGS Proton beam line: news since NBI2002 OUTLINE 1. Overview
Interaction Region Design Options e+e- Factories Workshop
Transfer Line for EIC.
Presentation transcript:

Ideas and Speculations for the Headon Extraction Line L. Keller Oct. 19, Give up the 3.5 m Separation between the Charged Dump and the Incoming Line: a) Move the charged dump from 740 m to 420 m and locate it in a gap in the incoming beam line. b) The tunnel to the dump can be much narrower than 14 mrad crossing which saves blast and drill expense. It still allows room for diagnostic sections. 2. Consolidate all Beam Losses on Three Dumps: a) A small aperture intermediate dump at Z = 139 m in the B1 string absorbs most of the beamstrahlung and much of the charged beam low energy tail. b) A dump at Z = 320 m absorbs the remaining beamstrahlung and low energy charged tail before the Compton polarimeter. c) The main charged dump at Z = 420 m is located in a space within the B5 bend string.

Plan View of Zero Degree Extraction from IP to Charged Beam Dump Int. Dump Beamstr. Dump and ECOLL Charged Dump Oct. 19, 2006

Plan View of Zero Degree Extraction Showing Beamstrahlung Collimation Int. Dump sep B1A B1B B2 Beamstr. Dump and ECOLL Muon Wall Charged Dump Energy Meas. Pol. Meas. QD2A QD2B QF3 Oct. 19, 2006 B5

Elevation View of Zero Degree Extraction Showing Beamstrahlung Collimation sep B1A B1B QD2A QF3 QD2B B2 sep Beamstr. Dump Int. Dump Oct. 19, 2006

Rough Cost Estimate of Blast and Drill for Three Tunnel Layouts 1.The BDS boring machine cuts a 4.5 m diameter tunnel all the way to the IR hall. 2. Then the triangular region from the IR hall to the dump is excavated by drilling and blasting. The estimated cost of this part of the operation is $800/cubic meter (F. Asiri). Crossing Blast and drill cost Angleof extraction line, both sides 14 mrad $5.8 M headon, dump at 740 m $12.7 M headon, dump at 420 m $3.6 M Oct. 19, 2006

Beam Assembled 2 MW slits ≈ 5 m long Beam Photographs of SLAC 2 MW Aluminum/Water Collimator and Dump

New Estimate of Beam Losses, kW Dump LocationFunction Nominal Parameters Low Power Parameters Headon Vertical offsetHeadon Vertical offset Z = 139 m Beamstrahlung and charged tail Z = 320 m Beamstrahlung core and charged tail Z = 420 mCharged beam~10,000~9,500~4500~3600 Oct. 19, 2006 charged beamstrahlung

Comments: 1.Is it feasible to place high power dumps and collimators in the middle of a beam line? a) We have to convince ourselves that the dump has sufficient peripheral shielding and space to protect people and nearby hardware. b) With beam pipes passing through dumps we have to worry about leakage of secondaries back into the beam line where they can irradiate magnets. 2.What magnitude cost savings get management’s attention - e.g. is a few $M really important? 3.The intermediate dump at Z = 139 m allows outboard dipoles to have small gaps. Need to check whether backscattered neutrons and photons don’t swamp the detector and cause problems in the separator. 4.The above design removes the septum dipole and vertical collimation chicane. It may be that ~1 mrad septum dipole is necessary to create more separation from the incoming line. Oct. 19, 2006

Comments (cont.): 5.If we give up all diagnostics, the charged beam could be dumped in the beamstrahlung dump at Z = 320 m. 6.With the above design the dc electric power should be < the 14 mrad extraction line power because of relatively small aperture, warm magnets in headon. Oct. 19, 2006

Summary: 1. Can save ~$10M in tunneling cost in the headon design by locating the charged dump in the middle of the incoming beam line. Tunneling would also be cheaper than 14 mrad. 2.With a small aperture intermediate dump we can concentrate many beam losses in one place, including beamstrahlung. 3.With the present extraction line optics design, we need to collimate 100’s of kW upbeam of the Compton polarimeter. This collimator can possibly be integrated into the beamstrahlung dump. Oct. 19, 2006