Booster Issues for NuMI Eric Prebys FNAL Beams Division.

Slides:



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

PIP and the Booster Notch Bob Zwaska October 12, 2011 PIP Meeting.
Proton Beam Measurements in the Recycler Duncan Scott On Behalf of the Main Injector Group.
1 Proton Upgrades at Fermilab Robert Zwaska Fermilab March 12, 2007 Midwest Accelerator Physics Collaboration Meeting Indiana University Cyclotron Facility.
Linac Status Eric Prebys DOE Review, Proton Source Breakout Session July 21,2003.
Near Term* Plans for the Fermilab Proton Source Eric Prebys FNAL Accelerator Division *Near term = “prior to proton driver”
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.
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.
Proton Plan PMG 3/22/07 E Prebys 1 Proton Plan Status February Eric Prebys.
A U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Laboratory Operated by The University of Chicago Argonne National Laboratory Office of Science U.S. Department.
3 GeV,1.2 MW, Booster for Proton Driver G H Rees, RAL.
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.
Getting Beam to NuMI (It’s a worry!) Peter Kasper.
Run II DOE Review - Booster Eric Prebys Booster Group Leader FNAL Beams Division.
Proton Plan Director’s Review 8/15/06 Prebys 2006 Shutdown Eric Prebys, FNAL Accelerator Division.
Proton Planning Eric Prebys FNAL Accelerator Division.
Experimenter Contributions to Booster Improvements Eric Prebys FNAL Accelerator Division.
Dog( leg )s of War Eric Prebys Run II Meeting March 13, 2003.
Secondary Particle Production and Capture for Muon Accelerator Applications S.J. Brooks, RAL, Oxfordshire, UK Abstract Intense pulsed.
Proton Study Meeting 4/19/05 Eric Prebys 1 Proton Plan Stage I Eric Prebys.
Booster Operation in Support of the Collider Program
F Proton Plan Eric Prebys, FNAL Accelerator Division.
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.
MiniBooNE – “The Last Fun HEP Experiment” Eric Prebys FNAL Beams Division/MiniBooNE.
The “Run II Era” The proton source is very close the the specifications in the Run II Handbook. Although it’s the highest priority, support of collider.
MiniBooNE Meeting 4/22/05 Eric Prebys 1 Status of the Proton Source Haud ignota loquor* Eric Prebys *I say things that are known.
Overview of Booster PIP II upgrades and plans C.Y. Tan for Proton Source group PIP II Collaboration Meeting 03 June 2014.
Accelerator Issues Fermilab Antiproton Experiment Keith Gollwitzer Antiproton Source Department Accelerator Division Fermilab.
Proton Plan PMG 7/7/05 E Prebys 1 Proton Plan Status June Report Eric Prebys.
WG2 (Proton FFAG) Summary G.H. Rees. Proton Driver Working Group  Participants: M. Yashimoto, S. Ohnuma, C.R. Prior, G.H. Rees, A.G. Ruggiero  Topics:
Getting the Booster to 2010 Eric Prebys December 20, 2002 Outine Longevity Issues Non-radiation related Radiation related Personnel Performance Issues.
What’s Up in the Booster Eric Prebys February 27, 2002 and March 6, 2003.
Booster Losses Keith Gollwitzer PIP and MI 700 kW review January 2015.
Proton Planning – Major Projects, Schedule, Decisions, and Projections Eric Prebys FNAL Accelerator Division.
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 PMG 2/23/06 E Prebys 1 Proton Plan Status January Report Eric Prebys.
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.
Proton Plan PMG 2/22/07 E Prebys 1 Proton Plan Status January Eric Prebys.
Status of the Accelerator Complex Keith Gollwitzer Antiproton Source Accelerator Division Fermilab 2009 Fermilab Users’ Meeting.
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.
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.
Proton Plan Director’s Review 8/15/06 Prebys Proton Plan Summary Director’s Review August 2006 Eric Prebys.
Proton Planning Eric Prebys FNAL Accelerator Division.
Proton Plan PMG 10/13/05 E Prebys 1 Proton Plan Status September Report Eric Prebys.
Setting BLM Limits in the Booster The Booster is now delivering all the protons needed by the collider program, and about 40% of the protons needed by.
The Proton Source (mostly Booster) in the “Collider Era” Eric Prebys February 3, 2003.
Proton Plan Director’s Review 8/15/06 Prebys Proton Plan Answers to Questions Director’s Review August 2006 Eric Prebys.
F Possible Proton Capabilities at Fermilab Dave McGinnis April 16, 2007.
Mu2e Meeting, FNAL, September 15-16, 2006 E Prebys 1 Radiation and Slow Extraction Issues* (work in progress) Eric Prebys, FNAL/AD.
Proton Plan PMG 4/18/05 E Prebys/J. Sims 1 Proton Plan Status March Report Eric Prebys Jeff Sims.
F Proton Plan Eric Prebys, FNAL Accelerator Division.
Toward a Proton Plan Eric Prebys Fermilab Accelerator Division.
PAC Meeting, December 12, Prebys 1 The Problem.
Intensity Dependent Quad Ramps We know that in order to get the most intensity, the quad ramps must be tuned for a particular intensity. The way this is.
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.
Proton Driver Keith Gollwitzer Accelerator Division Fermilab MAP Collaboration Meeting June 20, 2013.
Booster Status, September 4, 2003 – E. Prebys 1 Frantic Shutdown Preparations Continue…
Maximum Credible Beam Loss in the Main Injector D. Capista January 26, 2012.
Proton Economics Eric Prebys FNAL Accelerator Division.
Booster Corrector Review, Oct. 10 th, 2006 E. Prebys Introduction/Specifications Eric Prebys Proton Plan Manager.
Beam Commissioning Adam Bartnik.
Updated MEIC Ion Beam Formation Scheme
Presentation transcript:

Booster Issues for NuMI Eric Prebys FNAL Beams Division

The Basics One of two electrostatic pre-accs accelerates H- ions to 750 keV. The linac accelerates these ions to 400 MeV The ions are injected over several (up to 15) turns into the booster, and passed through a foil to strip off the electrons. The booster accelerates the protons from 400 MeV to 8 GeV. The booster lattice is in an offset 15 Hz (line/4) resonant circuit. This sets an overall quantum of time for the whole accelerator (“tick”, “click”, “clink”). Instantaneous 15 Hz rep rate routinely achieved. Average rep rate limited by –Power dissipation of ramped elements –Above ground radiation (safety issues) –Below ground radiation (activation issues) Some numbers: –Historical high*: 3E12 Hz (3E16 pph) –Run II needs: 5E12 Hz (1.3E16 pph) –BooNE+Run II: 5E12 Hz (1.1E17 pph) –NuMI + Run II: 5E12 Hz (6E16 pph) –NuMI + Run II+BooNE: 5E12 (1.7E17 pph) *MR fixed target, back when life was cheap Factor 8!

Pulsed element limits Linac chopper: 15 Hz ORBUMP Magnets: 7.5 Hz (lots of work to go to 15Hz) Booster RF: 7.5 Hz (Maybe go to 15 if we use existing cooling lines). BEXBMP: 15 Hz Extraction kickers: 15 Hz MP02 extraction septum: 2.5 Hz (New PS -> 4.5 Hz ~9/02, New magnet + PS -> 7.5Hz ~1/03, + more cables -> 15 Hz) -> We currently take 7.5 Hz as a practical limit for BooNE and beyond.

Radiation Issues Radiation Limitations –Above ground (want to avoid turning towers into controlled access area). Shielding Reduce beam losses –Below ground (must avoid making booster elements too hot to handle). Reduce beam losses

Proton Timelines Everything measured in 15 Hz “clicks” Minimum M.I. Ramp = 22 clicks = 1.4 s MiniBoone batches “don’t count”. Cycle times of interest –Stack cycle: 1 inj + 22 MI ramp = 23 clicks = 1.5 s –NuMI cycle: 6 inj + 22 MI ramp = 28 clicks = 1.9 s –Full Slipstack cycle (total 11 batches): 6 inject + 2 capture (6 -> 3) + 2 inject + 2 capture (2 -> 1) + 2 inject + 2 capture (2 -> 1) + 1 inject + 22 M.I. Ramp clicks = 2.6 s

Summary of Proton Ecomomics Booster Hardware Issues Radiation Issues NUMI “baseline” = 13.4E12 pps x 2E7 s/year  2.7E20 p/year *assuming 5E12 protons per batch

Best Performance + Shielding + BooNE Intensities

Bottom Line for Above Ground Radiation It looks like with a combination of shielding and careful beam handling, we should be able to keep above ground radiation to acceptable levels, even at BooNE+Run II intensities.

Below Ground Radiation Issues Harder to quantify (no hard limits) Worry about high service components becoming so activated that they can’t be worked on (e.g. RF cavities). Some are already disturbingly hot (~ foot) More about this in a minute…

Collimators Basic Idea… A scraping foil deflects the orbit of halo particles… …and they are absorbed by thick copper collimators. All are moveable, and the Copper collimators are located in areas (period 6&7) where radiation is less of an issue. Once their operation has been established, these areas will be heavily shielded. It is hoped that this collimation could reduce important losses by up to a factor of two. Status: All collimators are in and have been exercised. We are learning how to use them. They cannot be regularly used until the shielding is in place (by the shutdown).

Collimator Performance Time Position Relative Loss

Ramped Closed Orbit Corrections The main beam elements ramp with the momentum, but up until now, the corrector elements have been operated DC  Beam can “wander” by up to a few cm’s during ramp. Ramping control cards were installed during the shutdown. Closure control program almost ready. Still needs to be tested. Correctors not powerful enough to steer the beam all the way through the cycle. Still, should help.

Steered (flattened) Beam with Collimators Position Steered unsteered Relative Losses near extraction septum. Overall performance improved over unsteered collimation

MiniBooNE Comes on Line MiniBooNE Stacking Total Want Relative Sizes of MB and Stacking to Reverse!

Beam Power Loss (Beam Losses) Present Limit (will at least be doubled) 5 min. Beam Power Loss Protons delivered per minute (~ 1/10 of full MiniBooNE).

Bottom Line We have a LONG way to go to reduce losses to the level where MiniBooNE can run, let alone NUMI.

The “Notch” The Booster uses multi-turn injection, resulting in a continuous beam around the ring. If beam is passing through the extraction septum while it is ramping, some of it will be steered into beam elements. This is the single largest source of radiation resulting from the booster. Solution: Early in the cycle, the old extraction kicker is pulsed, blowing a “notch” in the beam. Extraction is timed to coincide with the notch. Problem: although it’s a factor of 20 better to lose the beam early in the cycle, it’s still not negligible (more in a minute) The notch raises serious complications in timing the booster relative to the main injector (beam cogging)

Timing: The One NuMI Specific Booster Problem In order to Reduce radiation, a “notch” is made in the beam early in the booster cycle. Currently, the extraction time is based on the counted number of revolutions (RF buckets) of the Booster. This ensures that the notch is in the right place. The actual time can vary by > 5 usec! This is not a problem if booster sets the timing, but it’s incompatible with multi-bunch running. We must be able to fix this total time so we can synchronize to the M.I. orbit. This is called “beam cogging”.

Active cogging Detect slippage of notch relative to nominal and adjust radius of beam to compensate. Allow to slip by integer turns, maintaining the same total time. Does not currently work at high intensities. Still do not really understand the problem. Suspect TCLK drift relative to magnet phase, but no correlation seen.

> 5E12 ppp ???? Early losses are extremely non-linear with number of turns of injection. Space charge effects are typically blamed, but the details are not well understood. A study group is working on this. Too late for BooNE, by maybe NuMI? Increasing the ppp would allow you to almost double your total protons before hitting the BooNE rad limits!!

Improved Beam Characterization We now have the ability to measure the Booster tune for the first time in many years. A number of improved monitoring tools have been added over the last year (e.g. linac energy meter), and have dramatically improved consistency.

Some Good News In spite of some recent disturbing comments… “If it’s not Run II, I don’t want to talk about it” -Sign on Steve Holmes’ Door … we have just been promised “substantial” support from the Computing Division for proton source (Booster+Linac) projects. It is envisioned that these people work on building and improving tools to monitor machine machine performance. “Proton Source” = “MiniBooNE+NUMI”