Bejing 2004: the Choice of Cold Technology Giorgio Bellettini International Workshop on Thin films Applied to Superconducting RF: Pushing the Limits of.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CLIC Energy Stages D. Schulte1 D. Schulte for the CLIC team.
Advertisements

Page 1 Collider Review Retreat February 24, 2010 Mike Spata February 24, 2010 Collider Review Retreat International Linear Collider.
CARE07, 29 Oct Alexej Grudiev, New CLIC parameters. The new CLIC parameters Alexej Grudiev.
Industry and the ILC B Barish 16-Aug May-05ILC Consultations - Washington DC2 Why e + e - Collisions? elementary particles well-defined –energy,
Personal Perspectives on the ITRP Recommendation and on the Next Steps Toward the International Linear Collider Barry Barish PAC Annual Meeting Knoxville,
The ILC Global Design Effort Barry Barish ILC Industrial Forum Japan 28-June-05.
Working Group 1: Microwave Acceleration Summary 10 July 2009.
ITRP Linear Collider Technology Recommendation Barry Barish ILCSC/ICFA Special Meeting IHEP, Beijing 19-Aug-04.
Status of International Linear Collider Global Design Effort Barry Barish (by telecon) HEPAP Washington DC 18-May-05.
ITRP Linear Collider Technology Recommendation Barry Barish HEPAP Meeting Washington DC 23-Sept-04.
Review of last year: Global Design Effort Barry Barish ILC Consultations URA, Washington DC 12-May-05.
Technology Breakthroughs and International Linear Collider Barry Barish AAAS Annual Meeting Washington DC 19-Feb-05.
Progress towards nanometre-level beam stabilisation at ATF2 N. Blaskovic, D. R. Bett, P. N. Burrows, G. B. Christian, C. Perry John Adams Institute, University.
Status of ILC Barry Barish Caltech / GDE 17-Aug-07.
Photon Collider at CLIC Valery Telnov Budker INP, Novosibirsk LCWS 2001, Granada, Spain, September 25-30,2011.
The LHC: an Accelerated Overview Jonathan Walsh May 2, 2006.
ILCSC Review of ILCSC Parameters Subcommittee Report Parameters subcommittee of the ILCSC Dongchul Son Center for High Energy Physics Kyungpook National.
Gek 16/6/041 ITRP Comments on Question 19 GEK 9/06/04 19) For the X-band (warm) technology, detail the status of the tests of the full rf delivery system.
1.Energy reach  High power klystrons and modulators for X-band still need development and industrialization, and thus brings risk. But klystrons of similar.
Summary of WG1 K. Kubo, D. Schulte, P. Tenenbaum.
The International Linear Collider and the Future of Accelerator-based Particle Physics Barry Barish Caltech Lomonosov Conference 20-Aug-2015 ILC.
1 Flux concentrator for SuperKEKB Kamitani Takuya IWLC October.20.
1 Tunnel implementations (laser straight) Central Injector complex.
NLC Status and Milestones D. L. Burke ISG9 KEK December 10-13, 2002.
Luminosity expectations for the first years of CLIC operation CTC MJ.
High gradient acceleration Kyrre N. Sjøbæk * FYS 4550 / FYS 9550 – Experimental high energy physics University of Oslo, 26/9/2013 *k.n.sjobak(at)fys.uio.no.
Cold versus Warm contribution to the discussion on energy and luminosity Giorgio Bellettini, Seul ITRP meeting, August 11, 2004,
PROTON LINAC FOR INDIAN SNS Vinod Bharadwaj, SLAC (reporting for the Indian SNS Design Team)
CLARA Gun Cavity Optimisation NVEC 05/06/2014 P. Goudket G. Burt, L. Cowie, J. McKenzie, B. Militsyn.
SINGLE-STAGE BUNCH COMPRESSOR FOR ILC-SB2009 Nikolay Solyak Fermilab GDE Baseline Assessment Workshop (BAW-2) SLAC, Jan , 2011 N.Solyak, Single-stage.
1 Physics Input for the CLIC Re-baselining D. Schulte for the CLIC collaboration.
Status of the International Linear Collider and Importance of Industrialization B Barish Fermilab 21-Sept-05.
Aug 23, 2006 Half Current Option: Impact on Linac Cost Chris Adolphsen With input from Mike Neubauer, Chris Nantista and Tom Peterson.
常伝導技術での LC の可能性 LC feasibility consideration with normal conducting technology 第5回「機構の研究推進について」の意見交 換会 (ILC の推進について ) 平成 24 年 2 月 13 日 加速器・肥後寿泰.
Cold versus Warm, parameters impacting LC reliability and efficiency contribution to the discussion on risk factors Giorgio Bellettini, Seul ITRP meeting,
ParameterL-bandS-bandX-band Length (m) Aperture 2a (mm) Gradient (Unloaded/Loaded) (MV/m)17/1328/2250/40 Power/structure (MW) Beam.
International Linear Collider Technology: Status and Challenges Steve Holmes Fermilab Wine & Cheese Seminar September 24, 2004.
LC Scope: European View 1- Scope document should define a parameter set for a Linear Collider to be used as the European input to the world wide scope.
CLIC Energy Stages D. Schulte1 D. Schulte for the CLIC team.
N. Walker, K. Yokoya LCWS ’11 Granada September TeV Upgrade Scenario: Straw man parameters.
24-July-10 ICHEP-10 Paris Global Design Effort 1 Barry Barish Paris ICHEP 24-July-10 ILC Global Design Effort.
Round Table discussion Norbert Holtkamp SNS Oak Ridge National Laboratory August 11, 2004.
10/08/04gek/ITRP/korea1 ITRPGEK Pre Meeting 6 thoughtsAug Both technologies can be made to work and either would lead to a linear collider with.
IoP HEPP/APP annual meeting 2010 Feedback on Nanosecond Timescales: maintaining luminosity at future linear colliders Ben Constance John Adams Institute,
ITRP Linear Collider Technology Recommendation George Kalmus ECFA Study Meeting Durham, 1 st Sept 2004.
1 Comments concerning DESY and TESLA Albrecht Wagner Comments for the 5th meeting of the ITRP at Caltech 28 June 2004 DESY and the LC What could DESY contribute.
HISTORY OF SNS DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY CHOICES PROJECT X WORKSHOP NOVEMBER 12-13, 2007 R. KUSTOM.
11/18/2008 Global Design Effort 1 Summary for Gamma-Gamma Mayda M. Velasco Northwestern University November 20, 2008 LCWS08 -- UIC, Chicago.
Nan Phinney SLAC ILC Worldwide Event, Fermilab, June 12, 2013 (Many slides courtesy of Marc Ross, Akira Yamamoto, Barry Barish) ILC Accelerator A 25-year.
Feasibility and R&D Needed For A TeV Class HEP e+e- Collider Based on AWA Technology Chunguang Jing for Accelerator R&D Group, HEP Division, ANL Aug
17-Sept-04ITRP Technology Recommendation 1 ITRP Linear Collider Technology Recommendation Barry Barish FALC Meeting CERN 17-Sept-04.
The Engineering Test Facility for nLC
ILC - Upgrades Nick Walker – 100th meeting
CLIC Klystron-based Design
SuperB Injection, RF stations, Vibration and Operations
Linac possibilities for a Super-B
Brief Review of Microwave Dielectric Accelerators
Measurements, ideas, curiosities
Accelerator Layout and Parameters
Top-Up Injection for PEP-II and Applications to a Higgs Factory
CEPC RF Power Sources System
Requests of Future HEP e+/e-Facilities
The Proposed Conversion of CESR to an ILC Damping Ring Test Facility
Electron Rings Eduard Pozdeyev.
ATF project meeting, Feb KEK, Junji Urakawa Contents :
Status of CTC activities for the Damping rings
Explanation of the Basic Principles and Goals
Barry Barish Paris ICHEP 24-July-10
ITRP Linear Collider Technology Recommendation
CLIC Feasibility Demonstration at CTF3
Presentation transcript:

Bejing 2004: the Choice of Cold Technology Giorgio Bellettini International Workshop on Thin films Applied to Superconducting RF: Pushing the Limits of RF Superconductivity Legnaro INFN National Laboratory, October 9, 2006

Content 1)Charge of the International Technology Recommendation Panel 2)Linear Collider options 3)ITRP methods of work 4)Scientific, technical, social issues 5)Recommendation

Charge: Tesla versus JLC/NLC “The International Technology Recommendation Panel (the Panel) should recommend a Linear Collider (LC) technology to the International Linear Collider Steering Committee (ILCSC). “ “On the assumption that a linear collider construction commences before 2010 and given the assessment by the ITRC that both TESLA and JLC- X/NLC have rather mature conceptual designs, the choice should be between these two designs. If necessary, a solution incorporating C-band technology should be evaluated.” The ITRP interpreted this charge as being to recommend a technology, not a design. However, for comparison purposes the parameters of the existing designs were used. The 5.7 GHz RF warm machine design (C-band) was not found superior to the JLC/NLC design (at 11.4 GHz) and was not influential in the global technology comparison. A description of CLIC was heard but that option was not considered.

ITRP method of work A large amount of written material was studied ITRP visited DESY, SLAC, KEK Each Panel Member interacted personally with members of the community A matrix of evaluation parameters was built on which each Panel Member expressed his view.

Evaluation Matrix Matrix parameters which turned out to be more important: Scientific issues Technical issues Physics operation issues Schedule issues Social impact of the LC It was agreed that cost of either machine could not be reliably assessed. Cost was removed from the matrix.

Scientific issues: machine luminosity CHARGE: “Luminosity and reliability of the machine should allow the collection of approximately L = 500 fb**(-1) in the first 5 years of running” The design luminosity of both machines L = 3,4.10**34 (cm-2.s-1) in TESLA, L = 2,5.10**34 (cm-2.s-1) in NLC was found to be adequate.

Scientific issues: machine energy CHARGE: “The machine should allow for an energy range between 200 and 500 GeV and allow for energy scans in this range with operation as dictated by physics”. “Both technologies were found to offer this flexibility” CHARGE: “The maximum c.m.s. energy should be 500 GeV”. “The machine will be designed to begin operation at 500 GeV, with a capability for an upgrade to about 1 TeV, as the physics requires. This capability is an essential feature of the design. ”

Significance of the proposed energy step If the LC ranges up to  s  1 TeV: From the SLC to the LC, factor ~ 10 From LEP2 to the LC, factor ~ 5 Compare with past experience: From PETRA to LEP2, factor ~ 5 From the ISR to the SpS Collider, factor ~ 10 From the SpS Collider to the Tevatron Collider, factor ~ 3 From the Tevatron collider to the LHC, factor ~ 7 We would be fully consistent with past experience.

If SUSY is there beyond the SM At least one SUSY Higgs, gauginos, sleptons… A Linear Collider can measure detailed properties of several supersymmetric particles: masses quantum numbers lifetimes decays  AN ENORMOUS PROGRAM even below 500 GeV

Energy reach versus operation reliability CHARGE: “The Panel will make its recommendation based on its judgment of the potential capabilities of each conceptual design for achieving the energies and the peak and integrated luminosities needed to carry out the currently understood scientific program”. “The warm technology allows a greater energy reach for a fixed length, and the damping rings and positron source are simpler. The Panel acknowledged that these are strong arguments in favor of the warm technology. The superconducting technology has features, some of which follow from the low RF frequency, that the Panel considered attractive and that will facilitate the future design.”

Some TESLA/ NLC Parameters (500 GeV) TESLANLC Design Luminosity (·10 34 cm -2 sec -1 ) Linac Repetition Rate (Hz)5120 No. of Bunches per Pulse Bunch Separation (nsec) Bunch Train Length (  sec) Loaded gradient (MeV/m) Two-Linac-Length (km) Total Site AC Power (MW) Plug to Beam Efficiency (%)(*) (*) Includes estimated loss in couplers and HMO absorbers

RF Parameters (500 GeV) TESLAJLC/NLC RF Frequency (GHz) Loaded Gradient (MV/m) Klystron Peak Power (MW)9.775 RF pulse length (  s) Filling Time (  s) Bunch Train Length (  sec)

Tesla linac layout 1500  s, 5Hz, 130 kV, 150 A TESLA: one 10 MW klystron driving 36 one meter long cavities (= 3 cryo- modules a 12 cavities) with 230 kW/m. 20 m TESLA 2820 bunches/train, 337 ns apart, 5 Hz, head-on collisions

NLC linac layout 1.6  s, 120Hz, 500 kV, 2.12kA NLC: 8 x 75 MW klystrons, supplying (after pulse compression) a peak power of ~100 MW/m. 192 bunches/train, 1.4 ns apart, 120 Hz, requires X-angle

Accelerating power TESLA has 572 Klystrons, ~ 1 Klystron/GeV The NLC has 4064 klystrons, ~ 8 Klystrons/GeV TESLA transfers the power to the beam in 1 millisecond, and the JLC/NLC in 0.3 microsecond. Over 3 orders of magnitude higher peak power in JLC/NLC. Space density of power on beam : TESLA MW/meter, NLC ~100 MW/meter after bunch compression. About 500 times larger density in JLC/NLC

Time structure of beams LC pulses are trains of bunches. 1 ms long trains are separated by 200 ms in Tesla (5 Hz) 0.3 microsecond trains are separated by 8.3 ms in NLC (120 Hz) Within trains, bunches are separated by 337 ns in Tesla Within trains, bunches are separated by 1.4 ns in NLC Adequate intra-bunch time helps to preserve luminosity. If some bunches miss the collision one has time to react within a Tesla train and ridirect later bunches. If malfunctioning is signaled by front of train one can abort the rest.

ITRP comment on beam time structure “The long bunch interval of the cold machine permits inter-bunch feedback and may enable increased beam current”.

TESLA NLC CLIC Iris diameter In Tesla, iris diameter is a = 70 mm. Transverse wake potentials are proportional to a**-3, must align cavity to within 0.5 mm. Aligment required to within micron in NLC (Note: even 5 mm are hard to get at the Tevatron)

Installation tolerances in TESLA and NLC* (  s = 500 GeV) Quad to survey offset: TESLA ~300 , NLC ~50  ** Structure to structure offset: TESLA ~300 , NLC ~25  Structure tilt : TESLA ~240  rad, NLC ~ 33  rad  Installation alignment simpler in TESLA. Final emittance preservation based on BPM`s easier in TESLA.  Dynamical realignment of elements based on BPM`s is planned hourly in NLC. ILCTRC Second Report (2003), megatable 7.19 ** At Fermilab present accuracy in magnet alignment at installation is ~250 

Alignment issue Luminosity stabilization (jitter in beam size and axis, final focus vibration) very challanging for all LC. Re-alignment every some months required in any LC to correct for slow ground motion. Continous re-alignment required in NLC to correct for frequent minor motion.

ITRP comment on beam alignment “The large cavity aperture of the cold machine reduces the sensitivity to ground motion”

Importance of a system test DESY will build XFEL and pave the way to a cold ILC by clearing a number of issues, including components reliability and linac cost. This will provide for free a testbed for the ILC. “The construction of the superconducting XFEL free electron laser will provide prototypes and test many aspects of the linac”

Social issues The large electrical bill of a multi-MW research facility will raise running budget questions and might face popular criticism. Total site AC power at 500 GeV is: Tesla 140 MW, NLC 195 MW luminosity/power is 1.9 times larger in Tesla. “The use of superconducting cavities significantly reduces power consumption”

Rational of ITRP reccomandation The superconducting technology has features, some of which follow from the low rf frequency, that the Panel considered attractive and that will facilitate the future design: The large cavity aperture and long bunch interval simplify operations, reduce the sensitivity to ground motion, permit inter- bunch feedback, and may enable increased beam current. The main linac and rf systems, the single largest technical cost elements, are of comparatively lower risk. The construction of the superconducting XFEL free electron laser will provide prototypes and test many aspects of the linac. The industrialization of most major components of the linac is underway. The use of superconducting cavities significantly reduces power consumption.

Oversimplified rational and recommendation “The main linac and rf systems, the single largest technical cost elements, are of comparatively lower risk.” “We recommend that the linear collider be based on superconducting rf technology. This recommendation is made with the understanding that we are recommending a technology, not a design.”

CONCLUSIONS It was a hard decision, with heavy and far reaching consequences The detailed design of a cold ILC being addressed is drifting appreciably from the TESLA design and indicating how difficult the real job will be We judged that it would be less difficult. However, the cold ILC will be by no means an easy machine. The future of HEP depends to a large extent on its success.