Booster Cogging Robert Zwaska Fermilab (University of Texas at Austin) Accelerator Physics & Technology Seminar Dec. 8, 2005.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
PIP and the Booster Notch Bob Zwaska October 12, 2011 PIP Meeting.
Advertisements

Proton Beam Measurements in the Recycler Duncan Scott On Behalf of the Main Injector Group.
Note: most of the slides shown here are picked from CERN accelerator workshops. Please refer to those workshop for further understanding of the accelerator.
1 Proton Upgrades at Fermilab Robert Zwaska Fermilab March 12, 2007 Midwest Accelerator Physics Collaboration Meeting Indiana University Cyclotron Facility.
MAP Meeting, IUCFMarch 12-13, Progress in Barrier Stacking W. Chou, J.Griffin, K.Y. Ng, D. Wildman Fermilab Presented to MAP Meeting IUCF, Indiana.
Re-commissioning the Recycler Storage Ring at Fermilab Martin Murphy, Fermilab Presented August 10, 2012 at SLAC National Laboratory for the Workshop on.
Development of new power supplies for J-PARC MR upgrade Yoshi Kurimoto (KEK) for J-PARC accelerator group.
NOvA meeting PIP Update W. Pellico. PIP Goals and Scope (Provided in 2011 – Directorate S. H. / DOE Talk ) Goals: Specific to the issues surrounding the.
Paul Derwent 30 Nov 00 1 The Fermilab Accelerator Complex o Series of presentations  Overview of FNAL Accelerator Complex  Antiprotons: Stochastic Cooling.
F Tevatron Software Digital Receiver Beam Line Tuner Vic Scarpine Instrumentation Instrumentation Meeting July 13, 2005.
3/7/05A. Semenov Batch-by-Batch Intensity Monitor 1 Two-Channel Batch by Batch Intensity Monitor for Main Injector BBI.
1 Electron Cloud Measurements at the Fermilab Main Injector Bob Zwaska Fermilab ECloud07 Workshop April 9, 2007.
Proton Plans at Fermilab Robert Zwaska - Fermilab Science and Engineering at Henderson- DUSEL Capstone Workshop Stony Brook University May 5, 2006 Outline.
Commissioning of the Fermilab Accelerators for NuMI Operation Robert Zwaska University of Texas at Austin NBI 2003 November 7, 2003.
F MI High Power Operation and Future Plans Ioanis Kourbanis (presented by Bruce Brown) HB2008 August 25, 2008.
Antiproton Source Capabilities and Issues Keith Gollwitzer & Valeri Lebedev Accelerator Division Fermilab 1.
Getting Beam to NuMI (It’s a worry!) Peter Kasper.
Booster Cogging Upgrades Craig Drennan, Kiyomi Seiya, Alex Waller.
Digital Signal Processing and Generation for a DC Current Transformer for Particle Accelerators Silvia Zorzetti.
INTRODUCTION  RECYCLER BPM – Original system not adequate to measure beam position precisely. It is being upgraded to meet the required physics precision.
Figure 2 gives an overview of the hardware components of the upgraded Main Injector BPM system. The figure shows 2 signal channels which produce one position.
AAC February 4-6, 2003 Protons on Target Ioanis Kourbanis MI/Beams.
Proton Planning Eric Prebys FNAL Accelerator Division.
Recent RF Development at Fermilab Weiren Chou and Akira Takagi Fermilab, U.S.A. July 7, 2003 Presentation to the FFAG03 Workshop July 7-12, 2003, KEK.
Booster Low Level Modules, Timing and some Measurements.
F 1 MW Proton Beam for Neutrinos Dave McGinnis AAC Meeting May 10, 2006.
Synchronization Andrew Hutton Slava Derbenev Yuhong Zhang.
F Proton Plan Eric Prebys, FNAL Accelerator Division.
1 Simulation of transition crossing in the Fermilab Booster Xi Yang September 5, 2006 Xi Yang the work has been done in collaboration with Alexandr Drozhdin.
Diagnostics in the Fermilab Proton Source (Linac + Booster) Eric Prebys FNAL Beams Division.
Booster Cogging Bob Zwaska University of Texas at Austin Bill Pellico FNAL.
The Main Injector Beam Position Monitor Front-End Software Luciano Piccoli, Stephen Foulkes, Margaret Votava and Charles Briegel Fermi National Accelerator.
FLASH II. The results from FLASH II tests Sven Ackermann FEL seminar Hamburg, April 23 th, 2013.
Booster Cogging: Synchronization with the Main Injector for NuMI & Slip-Stacking Robert Zwaska University of Texas at Austin Budker Seminar July 27, 2004.
Booster Issues for NuMI Eric Prebys FNAL Beams Division.
New PSB Beam Control Upgrade of daughter cards Alfred Blas PSB rf Working group meeting 24/03/ Generation of REV clocks 2.Synchronization with.
Overview of Booster PIP II upgrades and plans C.Y. Tan for Proton Source group PIP II Collaboration Meeting 03 June 2014.
MI primer for NuMI users  Getting beam  TLG modules  Timelines  Beam intensity  NuMI kickers  Extraction bumps and last turn positions  Batch positions.
F All Experimenters' Mtg - 2 Jun 03 Weeks in Review: 05/19/03 –06/02/03 Keith Gollwitzer – FNAL Stores and Operations Summary Standard Plots.
Booster Losses Keith Gollwitzer PIP and MI 700 kW review January 2015.
Doug Michael Sep. 16, GeV protons 1.9 second cycle time 4x10 13 protons/pulse 0.4 MW! Single turn extraction (10  s) 4x10 20 protons/year 700.
Proton Plan Expectations Eric Prebys AD/Proton Source.
Proton Source Improvement Workshop Cogging W. Pellico Dec 6&
Main Injector Beam Position Monitor Upgrade: Status and Plans Rob Kutschke All Experimenters’ Meeting April 3, 2006 Beams-doc-2217-v3.
9/2/2003Tev BPM requirements1 Tevatron BPM and BLM requirements Mike Martens.
High Intensity Booster Operations William Pellico PIP II collaboration Nov. 9 th 2015.
Users' Mtg - 4 Jun 08 FNAL Accelerator Complex Status Ron Moore Fermilab – AD / Tevatron Dept.
Bunch Numbering P. Baudrenghien AB/RF for the LHC/RF team.
SNuMI: WBS 1.1 Booster Upgrades Eric Prebys $642K FY06$ (no contingency, no G&A) xx% contingency Main Injector & Recycler BNB NuMI Tunnel Booster Ring.
Eric Prebys, FNAL.  We consider motion of particles either through a linear structure or in a circular ring USPAS, Hampton, VA, Jan , 2015 Longitudinal.
Proton Planning Eric Prebys FNAL Accelerator Division.
Early Beam Injection Scheme for the Fermilab Booster: A Path for Intensity Upgrade Chandra Bhat Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory DPF2015, ANN ARBOR,
SPS 200 MHz LLRF upgrade Part 2: Implementation Philippe Baudrenghien, Grégoire Hagmann,
Robert R. Wilson Prize Talk John Peoples April APS Meeting: February 14,
Beam time structures 1 At any particular instance of time there will be only one kind of beam in the MI. It will be either protons or anti-protons. The.
12/16/03Tev BPM requirements1 Tevatron BPM requirements Mike Martens.
LER Workshop, Oct 11, 2006Intensity Increase in the LER – T. Sen1 LHC Accelerator Research Program bnl-fnal-lbnl-slac  Motivation  Slip stacking in the.
Beam loss and radiation in the SPS for higher intensities and injection energy G. Arduini 20 th November 2007 Acknowledgments: E. Shaposhnikova and all.
Limitations to Total Booster Flux Total protons per batch: 4E12 with decent beam loss, 5E12 max. Average rep rate of the machine: –Injection bump magnets.
F Project X: Recycler 8.9 GeV/c Extraction D. Johnson, E. Prebys, M. Martens, J. Johnstone Fermilab Accelerator Advisory Committee August 8, 2007 D. Johnson.
ELENA RF Manipulations S. Hancock. Apart from debunching before and rebunching after cooling, the principal role of the rf is to decelerate the beam and.
Summary of ions measurements in 2015 and priorities for 2016 studies E. Shaposhnikova 3/02/2016 Based on input from H. Bartosik, T. Bohl, B. Goddard, V.
HP-PS beam acceleration and machine circumference A.LachaizeLAGUNA-LBNO General meeting Paris 18/09/13 On behalf of HP-PS design team.
Maximum Credible Beam Loss in the Main Injector D. Capista January 26, 2012.
PSB rf manipulations PSB cavities
PSB Injection scheme in the Linac 4 era
Top-Up Injection for PEP-II and Applications to a Higgs Factory
Limits on damping times
Beam dynamics requirements after LS2
Updated MEIC Ion Beam Formation Scheme
Presentation transcript:

Booster Cogging Robert Zwaska Fermilab (University of Texas at Austin) Accelerator Physics & Technology Seminar Dec. 8, 2005

Cogging Defined: adjusting the revolution frequency of bunched beam in a synchrotron to correspond to some external frequency Examples:  Centering collisions in an IR e.g. Tevatron, RHIC  RF synchronous transfer between rings Phaselock  Synchronization with external beam Booster Cogging

“Phaselock refers to experiments on the interconnectedness of the universe, where changes in one part, create instantaneous changes in the rest of the universe.”

Example: Booster Phaselock Match f B = f MI,  B =  MI Control beam’s radial position L. C. Teng, FERMILAB-TM-0281

Need for a Notch Extraction kicker has risetime of ~ 40 ns  Only ~ 10 ns between bunches Beam lost at 8 GeV during extraction Instead, beam is removed at 400 MeV  Reduces energy lost 20x Notch implemented for start of Run II and MiniBooNE  Reduces extraction loss 10x With a single batch, Booster determines beam position in the MI 84 RF buckets around circumference Notch Booster

Multi-Batch Operation Batch 1 (PBar) Batch 2 Batch 3 Batch 4 Batch 5 Batch 6 Booster Main Injector ½ Batch (empty) ½ Batch (empty) Two beams must be accelerated together in the Main Injector  Extracted to PBar & NuMI Requires “multi-batch” operation  6 or more batches from the Booster NuMI

Booster Cogging 84 RF buckets Notch Booster Main Injector Circulating Beam Extraction on notch  Notch must be coincident with kicker pulse  Booster must be aligned with MI beam However:  Accelerators are not synchronized Cogging aligns the azimuthal position of the notch with beam in the MI

Do it like phaselock? Revolution frequency is 1/84 th of RF frequency  84x the distance to be moved  Needs longer time or larger bump Booster has no flattop Bump can only be slightly larger  Need to cog during acceleration

Cogging Notch MI RF Concept – Not Reality

Cogging turns corrected error signal 84 buckets (one turn) Pellico & Webber Cogging Proof of Principle

Too Much Feedback

The Cogging System Controls:  Booster Radial Position  Notching  Extraction MI LLRF constraints  Frequency maintained  Marker maintained  Takes resets from the Booster GMPS feedforward Beam Information  MDAT & Booster Beam Gate Triggering  BDOT signal  TCLK timing

Cogging Electronics Use the “Generic” Booster Board  Also for GMPS, BLMs, etc. Digital and analog inputs/outputs Altera FPGA for fast counting DSP for calculations DSP Altera

Measurements Monitor Notch position throughout the cycle Use Main Injector RF as a standard clock Booster RF frequency varies with energy  38  53 MHz Start counting on Main Injector revolution marker (every 11  s) Stop Counting on Booster revolution marker (every  s) Makes a table of positions (tripplan) MHz Main Injector Revolution Marker – 53 MHz Booster Revolution Marker (Notch) Booster RF 38 – 53 MHz

Raw position Following the Notch RF buckets slip at a rate f MI – f B ≤15 MHz  Notch wraps around the Booster many times Extraction with one batch  Count RF buckets to make a marker  Extract on marker  Reset Main Injector With several batches  Clean extraction is possible if total slippage is exactly the same cycle-to-cycle  Requires 1 in 1,000,000 consistency…

Raw position  Relative to baseline ~ 3 turns Relative Slippage In software, we calculate the relative slippage cycle-to cycle  Use a previous cycle as a baseline

Sources of Slippage Any perturbation to RF will cause slippage Over 33 ms  f = 30 Hz gives 1 bucket slippage f = 37 – 53 MHZ → part per million problem Maximum Magnet Current Magnet Frequency Timing Minimum Magnet Current Time (ms)  S(t) (normalized) Several possible errors shown below:  Timing: 1  s  15 bucket slip  Magnet Frequency: 1 mHz  6 bucket slip  Minimum Magnet current (  p i ) : 1/10,000  10 bucket slip  Maximum Magnet current (  p e ) : 1/10,000  7 bucket slip

Timing Errors TCLK trigger is predicted from the Bdot of the previous cycles  Needs to occur few ms before the minimum Small variation in 15 Hz frequency can lead to  s errors Cycle trigger 2.2 ms before Bdot 64.5 ms (Booster Momentum) 15 Hz Fix: trigger data-taking on magnet minimum instead of clock MHz Main Injector Revolution Marker Current Minimum  Cogging Start Internal Marker MI markers come at arbitrary times w.r.t. trigger Leads to a timing error of as much as 11  s Solution  Generate an internal marker synchronized to the cogging start

GMPS Regulation Pulsed devices drag line current down  Particularly, RF & bias supplies Lower line current reduces power input to GMPS Apply feedforward correction to GMPS inputs

Error Corrections ~ 3 turns w/o correction and w/ correction ~ 1 turn Also need MI to maintain reference RF frequency

Predictive Notching Delay creation of the notch 5 ms  Use information of that period  Make notch anticipating further slippage. ~ 20 buckets w/o correction and w/ correction ~ 90 buckets Sample Notch

Radially Induced Slippage Induced slippage scales with radial offset  Rates of ~ 1 kHz/mm Calculation rr CC

Proportional Feedback Notch using prediction Radial Feedback late in the cycle  r = k ∙  S  Exponential damping  k  0.2 mm / bucket  e-folding time  10 ms Notch Radial Feedback Notch Radial Feedback Transition Radial Offset Proportional Feedback

Higher Gain Causes beam loss

Sustained (Flat) Feedback Flat & proportional feedbacks  Small error goes to proportional feedback Gigher Gain  Larger errors go to a large constant value of feedback Stay there until error is small Notch Radial Feedback 0 ms33 ms 15 ms35 ms Transition Large Constant Post-Transition Bumps Radial Offset

Final Cogging Algoritm Several timing improvements reduced beam slippage in the Booster Timing improvements reduce slippage: 200 → 70 buckets Ultimate synchronization goal: 1 RF bucket Notch delayed, and placed in anticipation of slippage  Pre-transition bump Uses a prediction algorithm Reduces post-trans. cogging necessary  Flat feedback is the same as above  Proportional feedback is doubled Large Constant Post-Transition Bumps Proportional Feedback Transition Feed-Forward Pre-Transition Bump Radial Offset Notch

Figure of Merit: Extraction Losses Cogging reduces extraction losses substantially  80-90%, depending on conditions Occasional misses caused by phaselock or small timing errors  Override reduces phaselock losses by pushing error into MI Overall – running such that cogging losses rarely limit Booster throughput NuMI Booster Cycles Cogged Losses Uncogged Loss

Cogging in Balance Hardware running stably  Very few glitches  Extraction losses reduced 80-90% Only method for multibatch  Adequate for today’s running In the future:  Only a few tweaks in cogging algorithms are possible Maybe inputs to other ramped systems  Higher intensity beam might require smaller range of movement  Phaselock can be redesigned  Faster kickers?  … Cogging effects:  Later notch results in more loss  Radial motion Before trans: ± 1(2) mm After trans: ± 2(4) mm  GMPS must be controlled  BDOT signal is vital  Phaselock interferes  MI is more constrained

Summary: Beam Delivered Booster cogging on multibatch cycles for slip-stacking and NuMI  Sources of variation were identified, and eliminated where possible  System to enforce synch by feedback (feedforward)  System made operational ~ 1 yr ago Over 30,000,000 cogged cycles Peak proton power to NuMI has approached 300 kW, achieving protons

Booster Cogging Robert Zwaska Fermilab (University of Texas at Austin) Accelerator Physics & Technology Seminar Dec. 8, 2005