P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 1 Outline  A quick review of the VLHC oA short description oSome important technical.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Introducing LEP3 zero M. Koratzinos TLEP3 day, 9 January2013.
Advertisements

CLIC Energy Stages D. Schulte1 D. Schulte for the CLIC team.
CERN First Considerations to implement nuSTORM on the CERN site “North Area Neutrino Hub” E.Wildner, CERN Wednesday, March 27, 2013Elena Wildner,
Study of the Luminosity of LHeC, a Lepton Proton Collider in the LHC Tunnel CERN June F. Willeke, DESY.
1 Methods of Experimental Particle Physics Alexei Safonov Lecture #8.
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.
Quadrupole Magnetic Design for an Electron Ion Collider Paul Brindza May 19, 2008.
Super-B Factory Workshop April 20-23, 2005 Super-B IR design M. Sullivan 1 Status on an IR Design for a Super-B Factory M. Sullivan for the Super-B Factory.
P. Limon HADRON COLLIDERS July 17, 2003 EPS 2003 Aachen 1 Outline  The Tevatron oWhat are the issues? oWhat is the plan for the immediate future?  The.
Industry and the ILC B Barish 16-Aug May-05ILC Consultations - Washington DC2 Why e + e - Collisions? elementary particles well-defined –energy,
A. Bay Beijing October Accelerators We want to study submicroscopic structure of particles. Spatial resolution of a probe ~de Broglie wavelength.
A Possible Strategy Towards a Future Lepton Collider Tor Raubenheimer SLUO Annual Meeting September 17, 2009.
Super-B Factory Workshop January 19-22, 2004 Accelerator Backgrounds M. Sullivan 1 Accelerator Generated Backgrounds for e  e  B-Factories M. Sullivan.
Interdisciplinary and Interagency Cooperation in High Energy Physics Barry Barish BPA 5-Nov-02.
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.
Crab Cavities in IR1 and IR5 Some considerations on tunnel integration What will be the situation in the tunnel after the LHC IR Phase-1 Upgrade. What.
1 Albrecht Wagner, Snowmass 0805 Albrecht Wagner DESY and Hamburg University Challenges for Realising the ILC.
The LHC: an Accelerated Overview Jonathan Walsh May 2, 2006.
HEPAP and P5 Report DIET Federation Roundtable JSPS, Washington, DC; April 29, 2015 Andrew J. Lankford HEPAP Chair University of California, Irvine.
P. Limon January 7, 2001 VLHC Study SAG 1 First, a little recent history  After Snowmass-1996, we had the following plan oA VLHC of 100 TeV (center-of-mass)
March 2011Particle and Nuclear Physics,1 Experimental tools accelerators particle interactions with matter detectors.
Concept of a hybrid (normal and superconducting) bending magnet based on iron magnetization for km lepton / hadron colliders Attilio Milanese, Lucio.
Future Accelerators at the energy frontier Peter Hansen february 2010 University of Copenhagen.
AARD Sub-panel at Fermilab Feb , 2006 LARP Magnet R&D Program - S. Gourlay1 BNL -FNAL - LBNL - SLAC LARP Magnet R&D Program Steve Gourlay AARD Sub-Panel.
The FCC Magnet Program: Challenges and Opportunities for HTS
The ISIS strong focusing synchrotron also at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. Note that ISIS occupies the same hall as NIMROD used to and re- uses some.
P. Limon December 11, 2003 ICFA Vacuum Workshop 2003 Fermilab 1 Outline  A quick review of the VLHC oA short description oSome important technical points.
Future Accelerators at the High Energy Frontier
P5 and the HEP Program A. Seiden Fermilab June 2, 2003.
F Project X Overview Dave McGinnis October 12, 2007.
IR summary M. Sullivan Nov. 3, 2011 JLAB MEIC IR workshop.
1 Flux concentrator for SuperKEKB Kamitani Takuya IWLC October.20.
CASA Collider Design Review Retreat HERA The Only Lepton-Hadron Collider Ever Been Built Worldwide Yuhong Zhang February 24, 2010.
1 Tunnel implementations (laser straight) Central Injector complex.
4 th International Workshop on VHMP, Alushta 2 June 2003 Carmine Elvezio Pagliarone A j u m p i n t o t h e F u t u r e !
F March 31, 2001David Finley / Fermilab Saturday Morning Physics Slide 2.1 Saturday Morning Physics - Accelerators Accelerators What’s Up Now? What’s Up.
US LHC Accelerator Research Program Jim Strait For the BNL-FNAL-LBNL LHC Accelerator Collaboration DOE Meeting 18 April 2003 brookhaven - fermilab - berkeley.
S. Gourlay 7/19/01 T2 Working Group Summary T2 Working Group Summary Magnet Technology: Permanent Magnets, Superconducting Magnets, Power Supplies Conveners:
J. Strait Fermilab 16 October 2006 Consideration on LHC upgrade from A US perspective.
LARP Magnet Progress Michael Lamm For the LARP Collaboration bnl - fnal - lbnl - slac US LHC Accelerator Research Program All Experimenters’ Meeting Monday,
PIP-II: Why a new accelerator? Paul Derwent Fermilab Community Advisory Board 23 July 2015.
Design and construction of Nuclotron-based Ion Collider fAcility (NICA) and Mixed Phase Detector (MPD) Design and construction of Nuclotron-based Ion Collider.
US LHC Accelerator Research Program (LARP) Background  Proposed in 2003 to coordinate efforts at US labs related to the LHC accelerator (as opposed to.
CLIC Energy Stages D. Schulte1 D. Schulte for the CLIC team.
News Y2K June 25, Summary of June 12 Face-to-Face Meeting.
LHC-CC Validity Requirements & Tests LHC Crab Cavity Mini Workshop at CERN; 21. August Remarks on using the LHC as a test bed for R&D equipment.
Inputs from GG6 to decisions 2,7,8,15,21,27,34 V.Telnov Aug.24, 2005, Snowmass.
June 3, 2004G.W.Foster - Proton Driver Proton Driver Project Development, Tactics & Strategy G. W. Foster Fermilab User’s Meeting June 3, 2004.
Glion Colloquium / June Accelerating Science and Innovation R.-D. Heuer, CERN HL-LHC, Aix-les-Bains, 1 Oct ECFA HL-LHC Experiments Workshop.
John Womersley 1/13 Fermilab’s Future John Womersley Fermilab May 2004.
24-July-10 ICHEP-10 Paris Global Design Effort 1 Barry Barish Paris ICHEP 24-July-10 ILC Global Design Effort.
F High Energy Colliders Vladimir Shiltsev Fermilab Steering Group.
HHH From Pipetron to LER: history of a brilliant idea and goal of this workshop Lucio Rossi CERN CARE-HHH workshop on LER CERN -11 October 2006.
Steering Group Meeting 10:30 – 12:30 am CDT Monday, July 23, 2007 Y2K.
Magnet R&D for Large Volume Magnetization A.V. Zlobin Fermilab Fifth IDS-NF Plenary Meeting 8-10 April 2010 at Fermilab.
Please check out: K. Ohmi et al., IPAC2014, THPRI003 & THPRI004 A. Bogomyagkov, E. Levichev, P. Piminov, IPAC2014, THPRI008 Work in progress FCC-ee accelerator.
BINP tau charm plans and other projects in Turkey/China A. Bogomyagkov BINP SB RAS, Novosibirsk.
Layout and Arcs lattice design A. Chancé, B. Dalena, J. Payet, CEA R. Alemany, B. Holzer, D. Schulte CERN.
Lucio Rossi The High Luminosity LHC Project Distinguished Lecturer 2013.
The FCC Magnet Program seen from CERN Meeting at ASC-2014, Charlotte, August 13t, 2014.
FCC-ee Interaction Region design
Stanford Linear Accelerator
contribution to the round table discussion
Warm magnets for LHeC / Test Facility arcs
The PEP-II Interaction e+e- Factories Workshop
Requests of Future HEP e+/e-Facilities
Interaction Region Design Options e+e- Factories Workshop
Barry Barish Paris ICHEP 24-July-10
Stanford Linear Accelerator
MEIC New Baseline: Performance and Accelerator R&D
Presentation transcript:

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 1 Outline  A quick review of the VLHC oA short description oSome important technical points  The VLHC in a global plan for HEP oHow & why a VLHC fits into a global plan  Some remarks on planning for HEP oPromoting huge accelerator projects in today’s political climate is very difficult. We make it more difficult by pursuing a flawed strategy. How can we make it better?

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 2 Design Study for a Staged Very Large Hadron Collider Fermilab-TM-2149 June 11,

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 3 The Staged VLHC Concept  Take advantage of the space and excellent geology near Fermilab. oBuild a BIG tunnel. oFill it with a “cheap” 40 TeV collider. oLater, upgrade to a 200 TeV collider in the same tunnel.  Spreads the cost  Produces exciting energy-frontier physics sooner & cheaper  Allows time to develop cost-reducing technologies for Stage 2  Creates a high-energy full-circumference injector for Stage 2  A large-circumference tunnel is necessary for a synchrotron radiation-dominated collider.  This is a time-tested formula for success Main Ring  TevatronLEP  LHC

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 4 Conclusions (1)  A staged VLHC starting with 40 TeV and upgrading to 200 TeV in the same tunnel is, technically, completely feasible.  There are no serious technical obstacles to the Stage-1 VLHC at 40 TeV and luminosity. oThe existing Fermilab accelerator complex is an adequate injector for the Stage-1 VLHC, but lower emittance would be better. (We should take this into account if Fermilab builds a high-power injector. Low emittance is important!) oVLHC operating cost is moderate, using only 20 MW of refrigeration power, comparable to the Tevatron. oImprovements and cost savings can be gained through a vigorous R&D program in magnets and underground construction.

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 5 Conclusions (2)  The construction cost of the first stage of a VLHC is comparable to that of a linear electron collider, ~ $4 billion using “European” accounting. oFrom this and previous studies, we note that the cost of a collider of energy near 40 TeV is almost independent of magnetic field. oA total construction time of 10 years for Stage-1 is feasible, but the logistics will be complex. oMaking a large tunnel is possible in the Fermilab area. Managing such a large construction project will be a challenge. oBuilding the VLHC at an existing hadron accelerator lab saves significant money and time.

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 6 Conclusions (3)  The Stage 2 VLHC can reach 200 TeV and 2x10 34 or possibly significantly more in the 233 km tunnel. oA large-circumference ring is a great advantage for the high- energy Stage-2 collider. A small-circumference high-energy VLHC may not be realistic. oThere is the need for magnet and vacuum R&D to demonstrate feasibility and to reduce cost.  Result of work completed after the “Study.” oFor very high energy colliders, very high magnetic fields (B>12T) are not the best solution.

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 7 VLHC Parameters

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 8 Transmission Line Magnet  2-in-1 warm iron  Superferric: 2T bend field  100kA Transmission Line  alternating gradient (no quadrupoles needed)  65m Length  Self-contained including Cryogenic System and Electronics Cabling  Warm Vacuum System 30cm support tube/vacuum jacket cry pipes 100kA return bus vacuum chamber SC transmission line

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 9 The First Stage-1 Magnet Yokes

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 10 VLHC Tunnel Cross Section

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 11 Underground Construction  Three orientations chosen to get representative geological samples of sites near Fermilab. oSouth site samples many geologic strata and the Sandwich fault. oOne north site is flat and goes through many strata. oOther north site is tipped to stay entirely within the Galena- Platteville dolomite, and is very deep.  These are not selected sites – merely representative. oCost of other sites can be built from data gained in these sites.

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 12 EAST-WEST SECTION

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 13 VLHC Cost Basis  Used the “European” cost base oNo detectors (2 halls included), no EDI, no indirects, no escalation, no contingency – a “European” base estimate.  Estimated the cost drivers using a standard cost-estimating format. This is done at a fairly high level. oUnderground construction (Estimates done by AE/CM firm) oAbove-ground construction (Estimates done by FNAL Facility Engineering Section) oArc magnets oCorrector and special magnets (injection, extraction, etc) oRefrigerators oOther cryogenics oVacuum oInteraction regions  Used today’s (2001) prices and today’s technology. No improvements in cost from R&D are assumed.

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 14 VLHC Stage 1 Cost Drivers Comparison: the SSC Collider Ring, escalated to 2001 is $3.79 billion * Underground construction cost is the average of the costs of three orientations, and includes the cost of a AE/CM firm at 17.5% of construction costs.

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 15 Stage-2 Magnets  There are several magnet options for Stage 2. Presently Nb 3 Sn is the most promising superconducting material. Stage-2 Dipole Single-layer common coil Stage-2 Dipole Warm-iron Cosine 

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 16 Stage-2 Cost & Performance  What are the general design ideas that exist for magnets for the Stage 2 VLHC?  We did not make a cost estimate of the Stage 2 VLHC, but we tried to understand major cost sensitivities. oFor example, how does the cost vary as a function of magnetic field?  After the “Study,” we did some work to help understand the limitations of Stage 2 performance. oDoes synchrotron radiation put limits on performance, or does it influence the choice of magnetic field?  Can detectors live in the radiation field?  These questions were studied to help guide future R&D.

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 17 VLHC Cost based on SSC cost distribution

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 18 Synchrotron radiation  Synchrotron radiation masks look promising. They decrease refrigerator power and permit higher energy and luminosity. They are practical only in a large-circumference tunnel. A “standard” beam screen will work up to ~200 TeV and ~2x Beyond that, the coolant channels take too much space. A synchrotron radiation “mask” will allow even higher energy and luminosity. Coolant

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 19 Magnet aperture required for beam screen and photon stops 200 TeV; 30 km bend radius 14 m magnet length Min. BS-beam clearance=4 mm Diameter increases due to increased coolant flow requirements

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 20 P SR 2 t sr Int/cross < 60 L units cm -2 s -1 VLHC Optimum Field

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 21 Detector Radiation Dose ~ 50 kW (total) at IP

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 22 Stage-2 VLHC Conclusions  The Stage 2 VLHC can reach 200 TeV and 2x10 34 or more in the 233 km tunnel.  A large-circumference ring is a great advantage for the high- energy Stage-2 collider. A small-circumference high-energy VLHC may not be realistic. oThe optimum magnetic field for a TeV collider is less than the highest field strength attainable because of synchrotron radiation, total collider cost and technical risk.  The minimum aperture of the magnet is determined by beam stability and synchrotron radiation, not by field quality.  There is the need for magnet and vacuum R&D to demonstrate feasibility and to reduce cost. oThis R&D will not be easy, will not be quick, and will not be cheap.

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 23 Next Steps  Most important, we must understand the science needs and the opportunities a VLHC presents. oThis workshop is a start!  If we ever want a VLHC, we have to keep at the R&D, particularly for high- and low-field magnets, tunneling and vacuum.  We need to reexamine our strategy for progress, planning and politics, not only for the VLHC, but for all large facilities.

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 24 The HEP Plan  We are on the verge of important discoveries oThere are many hints that great physics is just over the horizon — understanding EWSB, neutrino mass, dark energy, dark matter and more — an exciting time.  Possibilities for new HEP tools are excellent oRun II is moving ahead (some problems, but getting better) oLHC is being built (with the usual problems) oA renaissance in neutrino physics (New stuff) oA linear collider is being considered (and might be started in 5 to 10 years)  Should we include a VLHC in this plan?

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 25 VLHC in the HEP Plan  Why do we need to include the VLHC in the HEP plan? oIf we believe that we may eventually want higher-energy collisions at high luminosity, we will almost certainly want a VLHC.  The timing and eventual existence of a VLHC will depend on decisions about all other multi-billion-dollar facilities including linear collider. oThe U.S. has the best combination of resources, infrastructure, space and geology for a VLHC. It is difficult to build it anywhere else. oIf a linear collider is built in the U.S. for billions of $, the U.S. is unlikely to spend billions on a VLHC soon after. This results in a long delay for VLHC. oA significant energy upgrade of the LHC will be very costly and very risky, for very little gain.  Furthermore, more than VLHC is missing from the plan. oWhat about underground labs, super neutrino beams, astrophysics experiments or R&D for the future? All these should be in the plan.

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 26 The HEP Plan  We do not have a viable strategy for the survival of HEP. oA global scrap over a linear collider does not constitute a strategy.  There has been some recent progress in formulating a path to a linear collider technology decision.  We do not even have a plan to make a plan. oIn the U.S., for example, the HEPAP recommendation to create a mechanism to formulate a coherent strategy has become the narrowly-focused P5.  HEP must change the way it does things if it is going to survive!

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 27 The HEP Plan  Big HEP instruments require more than business as usual oA global strategy derived from a large vision of scientific goals — the “Science Roadmap.” Sell the science, not the instruments. oThe inclusion of a range of scientific disciplines and government policy makers from the beginning. oA fair and open mechanism to modify the roadmap and the plan as results dictate.  Why a global strategy? oBig HEP instruments are too costly to be planned, built and operated nationally or regionally. oHEP instruments are complex and take a long time to design and build. Everyone must be involved; everyone must help. oInternational collaboration has many political, human and scientific benefits beyond cost-sharing.

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 28 A Word About R&D  The machines we are talking about are very costly and very complex. oMistakes and delays are potentially very damaging financially, politically and scientifically. oIt takes longer than you think to develop the components of a cutting-edge collider.  The R&D investment for future HEP instruments will be much greater than we are accustomed to.

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 29 Conclusions  The most important requirement for the survival of HEP is worldwide cooperation resulting in a global strategy based on a visionary science roadmap.  Sell the science, not the instruments oLearn from the NASA strategy, in which the goals are truly large and visionary, and the instruments are missions along the way.  The parameters and schedule for a VLHC will depend on the timing and location of all other large facilities. The global plan should recognize these couplings.  If we ever want to build a VLHC, or any other very large facility, we need to have a vigorous R&D program now. oThe R&D is very challenging, and the penalty for failure will be severe.

P. Limon October 16, 2003 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab 30 Last Slide