Akihisa TOYODA, KEK. Outline g-2/EDM beamline Final Focus(FF) optimization Requirements Option 1: 1-Solenoid case Option 2: 3-Quads case Option 3: 1-Solenoid.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
January 14, 2004 TJR - - UPDATED 1/25/04 1 MICE Beamline Analysis Using g4beamline Including Jan 25 Updates for Kevin’s JAN04 Beamline Design Tom Roberts.
Advertisements

Simona Bettoni and Remo Maccaferri, CERN Wiggler modeling Double-helix like option.
1 TTF Superconducting Quadrupole Doublet Simulation with MAFIA to compare with Measurements Michaela Marx 27 March 2006.
Summary of the discussion for the commissioning session 2 nd ATF2 Project Meeting KEK, Tsukuba, Japan 6/ 1/ 2006 T.Okugi (KEK)
Magnetic Field Design of a Superconducting Magnet for the FFAG Accelerator T.Obana, T.Ogitsu A,T.Nakamoto A,K.Sasaki A A.Yamamoto A, M.Yoshimoto A, Y.Mori.
Magnetic design of a superconducting magnet for the FFAG accelerator T.Obana, T.Ogitsu A,T.Nakamoto A,K.Sasaki A A.Yamamoto A, M.Yoshimoto A, Y.Mori A,T.Origasa.
Pion capture and transport system for PRISM M. Yoshida Osaka Univ. 2005/8/28 NuFACT06 at UCI.
SLIDE Beam measurements using the MICE TOF counters Analysis meeting, 23 September 2008 Mark Rayner.
Slide 1 MICE Beamline Design and Commissioning Review 16 th Nov 2007 Simulation comparison / tools / issues Henry Nebrensky Brunel University There are.
V.Daniel Elvira Status Report on Cooling Simulations using GEANT4 Motivation: Explore a realistic design of a 44/88 MHz based cooling channel for a -factory.
June 13, Geant4 Simulations of the MICE Beamline Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology June13, 2003.
Optimization of Target Parameters for a Tungsten Target (Half Density) at 8GeV X. Ding Target Studies Nov. 2, 2010.
Beam line summary paul drumm for beam line group.
V.Daniel Elvira Status Report on Cooling Simulations using GEANT4 Motivation: Explore a realistic design of a 44/88 MHz based cooling channel for a -factory.
Comparison of Power Deposition in SC1 Coil Xiaoping Ding UCLA Target Studies Jun. 29, 2010.
May 22, 2008 TJRMICE Beamline Collimation and Correction 1 Tom Roberts Carol Johnstone Muons, Inc.
TJR 7/30/031 Geant4 Simulations of the MICE Beamline Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology 7/30/03.
March 30, 2004 TJR1 MICE Beamline Performance with New Magnet Descriptions Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology March 30, 2004.
Mark Rayner, Analysis workshop 4 September ‘08: Use of TOFs for Beam measurement & RF phasing, slide 1 Use of TOFs for Beam measurement & RF phasing Analysis.
Magnetic Field Strength Around a Wire. From the demonstration, we saw that: the magnetic field strength varies directly with the amount of current flowing.
SuperB Meeting, May 2008 Status of the magnetic design of the first quadrupole (QD0) for the SuperB interaction region S. Bettoni on behalf of the whole.
115 December 2011 Holger Witte Brookhaven National Laboratory Advanced Accelerator Group Elliptical Dipole.
Backgrounds in the NLC BDS ISG9 December 10 – Takashi Maruyama SLAC.
1 IR with elliptical compensated solenoids in FCC-ee S. Sinyatkin Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics 13 July 2015, CERN.
Shifting the Position of Focal Point of Proton Beam Relative to Intersection Point with Fixed Emittance for IDS120h Configuration X. Ding, UCLA Target.
Calculation of the beam dynamics of RIKEN AVF Cyclotron E.E. Perepelkin JINR, Dubna 4 March 2008.
Beam MC activity A.K.Ichikawa for beam group For more details,
Prompt Kicker M. Aoki. 2 3 H-Line Kicker Prompt Burst: 5e8 / H-line exit – Any detectors will be saturated. Need to reduce the prompt burst.
rd ATF2 project meeting Permanent Magnet Updates Y. Iwashita, M. Ichikawa, Y. Tajima, M.Kumada, C.M. Spencer Kyoto University, NIRS, SLAC Contents:
Proton Delivery to Target Keith Gollwitzer Accelerator Division Fermilab MAP 2012 Winter Meeting March 7, 2012.
KEK beam test in May 2005 Makoto Yoshida Osaka Univ. MICE Frascati June 27 th, 2005.
BL1U at TRIUMF UCN Beamline Septum & Dipole Magnets (April 12, 2010)
KEK Test Beam Phase I (May 2005) Makoto Yoshida Osaka Univ. MICE-FT Daresbury Aug 30th, 2005.
Kinetic Energy Spectra of pi +, pi -, mu +, mu - and sum of all from the 20to4T5m Configuration X. Ding Front End Meeting June 23,
Proton Driver – Target Station Interfaces Keith Gollwitzer Fermilab Wednesday May 28, 2014 MAP 2014 Spring Meeting.
Magnetic Fields Due to Currents JH
1. Introduction 2. Magnetic field design Optimization of yoke configuration in several conf. Boundary conditions -
Capture and Transport Simulations of Positrons in a Compton Scheme Positron Source A. VIVOLI*, A. VARIOLA (LAL / IN2P3-CNRS), R. CHEHAB (IPNL & LAL / IN2P3-CNRS)
MEIC Detector and IR Integration Vasiliy Morozov, Charles Hyde, Pawel Nadel-Turonski MEIC Detector and IR Design Mini-Workshop, October 31, 2011.
Jin Huang BNL/LANL. ePHENIX Review J. Huang 2 RICH GEM Station4 EMCal HCal GEM Station2 R (cm) HCal p/A EMCal GEMs EMCal & Preshower TPC DIRC η=+1 η=
Interaction Region Design and Detector Integration V.S. Morozov for EIC Study Group at JLAB 2 nd Mini-Workshop on MEIC Interaction Region Design JLab,
Detector / Interaction Region Integration Vasiliy Morozov, Charles Hyde, Pawel Nadel-Turonski Joint CASA/Accelerator and Nuclear Physics MEIC/ELIC Meeting.
Muons, Inc. 14 Jan 2010 S. Kahn--IR Quads 1 IR Quadrupoles with Exotic Materials Steve Kahn, Muons Inc. Bob Palmer, BNL Don Summers, Ole Miss.
Chapter 20 Magnetism Magnetism 20 Phy 2054 Lecture Notes.
A.Saini, K.Ranjan, N.Solyak, S.Mishra, V.Yakovlev on the behalf of our team Feb. 8, 2011 Study of failure effects of elements in beam transport line &
Multipole components in the RCS-BM Hideaki Hotchi Dec. 8, Tokai.
AUGUST 3, 2010 BRYCE AUSTELL UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FERMILAB SIST INTERN ADVISOR: RYUJI YAMADA Muon-to-Electron Conversion Experiment (Mu2e) Detector Solenoid.
Paul drumm, mutac jan Status of Muon Beamline design work Kevin Tilley, RAL, 9th Feb Including Beamline Materials in new revision Reference ('True')
This presentation will describe the state of each element in the beam line with regards to the current update being undertaken. Firstly, it will describe.
Implication of gamma-gamma on 14mr tunnels discussion (questions for discussion with WG-C and WG-A) Valery Telnov Budker INP IRENG07, Sept.19, 2007, SLAC.
Numerical Simulations for IOTA Dmitry Shatilov BINP & FNAL IOTA Meeting, FNAL, 23 February 2012.
1 Muon g-2 Experiment at BNL Presented by Masahiko Iwasaki (Tokyo Institute of Technology) Akira Yamamoto (KEK) for E821 g-2 Collaboration: Boston, BNL,
Review of Alignment Tolerances for LCLS-II SC Linac Arun Saini, N. Solyak Fermilab 27 th April 2016, LCLS-II Accelerator Physics Meeting.
Simulation of Particle Trajectories for RIKEN Rare-RI Ring Nishina Center, RIKEN SUZUKI Hiroshi Nov. / 11 / 2011.
Yingshun Zhu Accelerator Center, Magnet Group
Dipole Magnetic Field Effect on the Antiproton Beam
Interaction Region and Detector
Yingshun Zhu Design progress of QD0 in CEPC Interaction Region
MDI and head-on collision option for electron-positron Higgs factories
SBS Magnet, Optics, and Spin Transport
Final Focus Synchrotron Radiation
Conceptual Design of CEPC Interaction Region Superconducting Magnets
General Particle Tracer (GPT) Simplified Simulations: Counter-wound Solenoids A. Hofler July 12, /14/2017.
Updates on IR and FF for super-B factory
Capture and Transmission of polarized positrons from a Compton Scheme
First look at final focus part of super-B factory
CEPC main ring magnets’ error effect on DA and MDI issues
Interaction Region Design Options e+e- Factories Workshop
Option 1: Reduced FF Quad Apertures
S. Bettoni on behalf of the whole team
Presentation transcript:

Akihisa TOYODA, KEK

Outline g-2/EDM beamline Final Focus(FF) optimization Requirements Option 1: 1-Solenoid case Option 2: 3-Quads case Option 3: 1-Solenoid + 3-Quads case Summary MuHFS beamline FF optimization Requirements 3-Quads + HFS magnet case Summary

H-Line Layout MuHFS FF g-2/EDM FF Production target

g-2/EDM beamline: Final focus Requirements Transmission: as high as possible Focus point size < 4 cm  Small focus point helps to increase laser density. Leakage field of final focus magnets: as small as possible This may affect slow muon beam transport

g-2/EDM BL: 1 Solenoid case hb3 hs6 FF G4BL 0.4 m FF x 1.7 cm, xp 38.5 mrad, 87.5 % inside 40  y 1.8 cm, yp 48.2 mrad

g-2/EDM BL: hs6 field by G4BL FF: 0.07 tesla Maximum field: 0.42 T hs6

g-2/EDM BL: 3 Quads case (w/ hs5 tuning) hb3 hq7 FF 0.6 m hq8 hq9 FF x 3.5 cm, xp 46.9 mrad, 63.7 % inside 40  y 0.8 cm, yp 97.8 mrad

g-2/EDM BL: 1 Sol +3 Quads case hb3 hq7 FF 0.6 m hq8hq9 FF x 2.1 cm, xp 50.6 mrad, 83.4 % inside 40  y 1.1 cm, yp 95.7 mrad hs6

Summary and future plans: g-2/EDM Option 1: 1 solenoid for FF Beam size is small:  x 1.7 cm,  y 1.8 cm, 87.5 % inside 40 . Distance between solenoid end and FF is 0.4 m Leakage field to FF is as high as 0.07 T, thus some magnetic shield is necessary. Option 2: 3 Quads (+ hs5 tuning) Beam size is:  x 3.5 cm,  y 0.8 cm, 63.7 % inside 40 . Distance between last Q end and FF is 0.6 m Option 3: 1 solenoid + 3 Quads Beam size is small:  x 2.1 cm,  y 1.1 cm, 83.4 % inside 40 . Distance between last Q end and FF is 0.6 m Future plans 3 Quads + hs1-4 tuning to maximize intensity inside 40 . Estimation of Q leakage field to FF Short version

MuHFS beamline: Final focus Requirements Transmission: as high as possible Focus point size < 6 cm  all muons inside good field region of HFS magnet (20 cm  ) Not so difficult due to high HFS solenoid field Momentum spread: muon stopping distribution all muons inside good field region of HFS magnet (30 cm long) Leakage field of final focus magnets: less than 1.7 gauss(100 ppm) limit of magnetic field correction by HFS magnet Shim coil

MuHFS BL: 3 Quads No HFS case hb2 hq1 hq2 hq3 2.3 m FF 1 m apart from hq3 end x 3.4 cm, xp 42.8 mrad, 93.9 % transmission y 3.0 cm, yp 34.8 mrad

MuHFS: HFS magnetic field Consistent with Opera calculation by Sasaki-san Maximum field: 1.7 T

MuHFS: HFS magnetic field hq3 end: tesla Magnetic field on beam axis Magnetic field map on x-z plane HFS center: 4500 mm hq1hq2 hq3hb2

MuHFS: HFS leakage field hq3 end w/o HFS magnet w/ HFS magnet HFS leakage field does not seriously affect beam profile. Almost the same

MuHFS BL: 3 Quads+HFS hb2 hq1hq2hq3 2.3 m FF FF x 1.3 cm, xp mrad, 93.6 % transmission y 1.3 cm, yp mrad

Summary and future plans: MuHFS 3 Quads + HFS magnet for FF Beam size is small:  x 1.3 cm,  y 1.3 cm, 93.6 % transmission Distance between last Q end and FF is 2.3 m Leakage field at last Q is as small as T Future plans Leakage field of beamline magnets in HFS magnet region Muon stopping distribution estimation

Spare slides

g-2: 1 Sol profile

g-2: 3 Quads profile

g-2: 1 Sol+3 Quads profile

MuHFS: 3 Quads profile

MuHFS: 3 Quads entrance

MuHFS: 3 Quads profile entrance

Q fringing field hq1 without fringe parameters Magnetic pole tip radius = 175 mm FF, w/o HFS RMSx 2.7 cm, RMSy 2.9 cm 94.6 % transmission

Q fringing field hq1 with dq2 fringe parameters, FieldLength= param=0.5873,5.894, ,5.784, 2.947, Magnetic pole tip radius = 175 mm FF, w/o HFS RMSx 3.1 cm, RMSy 3.4 cm 96.3 % transmission

Q fringing field hq1 with fringe parameters, FieldLength= param=0.0,0.0, 0.0,0.0, 0.0,0.0 Magnetic pole tip radius = 175 mm FF, w/o HFS RMSx 10.7 cm, RMSy 1.6 cm 93.0 % transmission

Q fringing field w/ HFS mag. FF, w/o Q fringe w/ HFS RMSx 1.5 cm, RMSy 2.6 cm 66.5 % transmission FF, w/ Q fringe w/ HFS RMSx 1.5 cm, RMSy 2.6 cm 71.4 % transmission

hb2 end profile w/o, w/ HFS mag w/o HFS mag. w/ HFS mag. -30 mm shift!

HFS field map at around Quads HFS center: 4500 mm Very strange structure!

Mag. field for each coil MC12SC12

Mag. field w/ maxZ correction Very strange structure disappears!

hb2 end profile w/o, w/ HFS mag w/o HFS mag. w/ HFS mag. No shift!

g-2 BL: optimization by transport Solenoid: 0.42 T transport x 4.4 cm, xp mrad y 5.2 cm yp mrad G4BL x 1.9 cm, xp 75.0 mrad y 4.0 cm yp 81.7 mrad

g-2 BL: transport result with G4BL magnetic field transport x 1.1 cm, xp 97.5 mrad y 1.1 cm yp mrad G4BL x 1.9 cm, xp 75.0 mrad y 4.0 cm yp 81.7 mrad

MuHFS BL: optimization by transport Transport hq1: pole hq2: pole hq3: pole x 2.6 cm xp 60.7 mrad y 3.2 cm yp 19.4 mrad G4BL hq1: pole hq2: pole hq3: pole x 2.1 cm xp 70.0 mrad y 3.6 cm yp 45.6 mrad