1. Linac Design Update Project WP6 - Monthly Report – 2011-05-31
Status
Summary:
Preparation of the experimental activities under way, Analysis of the critical issues started for all WUs, RFQ beam dynamics studies in progress, Identification of the key actions for the MEBT
Key Achievements
Planned Key Activities
Main Risk and Issues
Activities of WU2,WU3,WU4,WU5 started
Meeting in Bilbao on MEBT (4th May) permitted the identification of the key actions for WU4
The design of the RFQ pole is ready for validation
No deliveries yet
Characterization of the new heating scheme for the plasma of the proton source.
Meeting on RFQ pole design validation scheduled on June 16th.
RF modeling continues.
Analysis of the different options for the DTL continues.
MEBT buncher optimization continues
Warm Linac meeting on July 6th (main goal: discussion of interfaces, review of criticalities and responsabilities)
Manpower for WU2 and for WU5 not yet hired
No active or imminent risks G G

2. R Y G

3. R Y G The contribution of all participants is required
The search for critical issue:never too early!
We are now at ¼ of the ADU phase
Last few months have been useful to
A) identify the state of the art, its plus&minus, goals
B) “synchronize” the different groups
C) look for the solutions of the major obstacles
D) select between possible alternatives
Today will be a turning point to best practice if:
i) we tackle the criticalities, recognizing them
ii) we help each other to do that
iii) we agree on major constraints/interfaces Y G

4. R Y G But nothing has to be considered as a “final cut”.
There is enough time to change any solution we choose now for the ADU, not exaggerating…
The next months will be devoted to the preparation of end-to-end simulations, to the check of the reliability issues for Ion Source and RFQ, to the optimization of the drift tube designof the DTL, for the analysis of beam halo problems and SCC
CDR preparation
Answers to TAC-3 G

5. R Y
Some “transversal” elements have not yet been considered in a global-NC_Linac view (vacuum, diagnostics, controls, EMI, ‘reasonable’ mechanical constraints)
Vacuum: different optimum values for the different parts (10-5 mbar for the source&LEBT, two order of magnitude better in the RFQ, some local problems in the MEBT for the presence of collimators, DTL true values?)
Diagnostics: where and how much redundancy?
Controls and EMI: Ion source tests with COSYLAB in autumn (EMI problems are a peculiarity of the Ion Source? Controls are affected?); what controls check for RFQ,MEBT and DTL?
Mechanics: don’t forget that the nicest simulations is always cancelled by the mechanics constraints (what’s perfect for the code is often uneasy to be mounted…) G

6. R
Update of owned parameters (during the round table a review of the parameters may help to have a shared agreement on the data provided by each owner)
Specific elements: collimators (number/position/type), buncher (position/characteristics), chopper(s) (position/characteristics), diagnostics elements (type/position/characteristics)
Requirements docs WP6 units (Romuald scheme is all-inclusive?)
Deliverables (in 2011 we have: DTL quadrupole report in October, Report on magnetic system of the source, on Pole tips of RFQ and on DTL tank design in December): will be timely?
Any other issues that will be underlined out of this introductory scope is welcome
The sooner the better…. Y G

7. Next ICIS’11 list of Invited talks will include two papers on ESS-related subject, by N.Chauvin on SCC and transport of intense beams, and by D. Mascali on New Schemes for Plasma formation devoted to the intense beams production. R Y G