Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Beam-beam effects for round and flat optics: DA simulations D.Banfi, J.Barranco, T.Pieloni, A.Valishev Acknowledgement: R.DeMaria,M.Giovannozzi,

Published byCassandra Welch Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Beam-beam effects for round and flat optics: DA simulations D.Banfi, J.Barranco, T.Pieloni, A.Valishev Acknowledgement: R.DeMaria,M.Giovannozzi,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Beam-beam effects for round and flat optics: DA simulations D.Banfi, J.Barranco, T.Pieloni, A.Valishev Acknowledgement: R.DeMaria,M.Giovannozzi, lhc@home team 1

2 D.BanfiBB meeting Possible Scenarios : Baseline1 : Luminosity of 5e34 Round optics: 70cm  to 10cm  * Full crab crossing in IP1 and IP5 Leveling luminosity with  * in IP1, IP5. Adding contribution of IP8 and IP2 Minimum crossing angle/Maximum Intensity Baseline2 : Luminosity of 7.5e34 Round optics: 33cm  to 10cm  * Full crab crossing in IP1 and IP5 Leveling luminosity with  * in IP1 & IP5 Adding contribution of IP8 and IP2 Flat Optics From round to flat optics (40/40 down to 30/7.5 cm) No crab crossing Leveling luminosity with  * in IP1, IP5. 2 Extreme Case: no  * leveling 15cm  * Round optics No  * leveling Nominal crossing angle 590  rad IP1&5

3 GOALS: Ensure that a 6  DA and define constrains: Minimum crossing angle acceptable Intensity limits IPs contribution Multipolar errors effect Other parameters that could reduce performances Baseline1 : Luminosity of 5e34 Head-on strong  Q = max 0.033 to  0.01 Long Range: IP1&5 From 26   12.5  Int 2.2e11  1.1e11  IP8 2 LR at 5s (others > 20  ) IP2 all > 30  Baseline2 : Luminosity of 7.5e34 Head-on strong  Q = max 0.033 to  0.01 Long Range: IP1&5 From 18   12.5  Int 2.2e11  1.5e11  IP8 2 LR at 5s (others > 20  ) IP2 all > 30  Flat Optics Moderate HO From round  flat (40/40  30/7.5 cm  *) Leveling luminosity with  * in IP1, IP5.  R. Tomas talk “Alternative scenarios” Extreme Case: no  * leveling Head-on strong  Q = max 0.033 to  0.01 Long Range: strongest  IP1&5 at 12.5  at Int 2.2e11 BB expected Effects for Possible Scenarios :

4 4 Simulation Summary Explore the parameter range: round optics (10,15,33,40 cm) flat optics (30cm/7.5cm, 40/10,40/20,40/30,40/40) 4D/6D BB lens X-angle scan from 190 —>790urad Normalized Emittance = 2.5  m Initial amplitude from 0—>12 σ Beam intensity from 0.9E11—>3.0E11 ppb 17 angle in xy plane (every 5 deg) w & w/o multipolar errors w & w/o Crab Crossing 2 Ips IP8 contribution single multipolar error family contribution HLLHCV1.0 and SLHCV3.1b optics To be done: IP2 not in the picture yet but marginal effects (d sep > 30  )

5 5 LHC@Home Close to 10Mjobs to cover all possible cases! It’s impossible to run such number of jobs on CERN lsf: BOINC is the only way to go! EPFL is proud sponsor of the LHC@Home project on BOINC platform! We are at present : Testing existing and developing new features Extensive use (more than 30M jobs up to now…) Forum administrator and moderator Thanks to LHC@Home Team for the support (E.McIntosh, R.Demaria, I.Zacharov, N. Hømyr et al.) and to CERN-IT team. http://lhcathomeclassic.cern.ch/sixtr ack/ http://lhcathome.web.cern.ch

6 6 Outline Round optics IP1(ATLAS) and IP5 (CMS) main drivers: Crossing angle scans Intensity scans Effect of crab crossing Impact of multipolar errors Impact of IP8 (LHCb) Summary of 5e34 and 7.5e34 Lumi scenarios Flat optics: Crossing angle scans Intensity scans Multipolar Errors Possible use  R. Tomas talk Summary and Future work

7 7 Round optics15 cm, 2.2E11: crossing angle scan Beam beam LR separation is proportional to crossing angle. Reducing angle  reduce separation  increase beam beam LR effects and decreases DA linearly IP1 & IP5 only HLLHCV1.0 optic d sep 12.5 s d sep IP1 d sep IP5

8 8 Nominal scenario: Full Crabing 5 th 7 th 10 th 13 th Crab Crossing introduces large HO tune shift Different resonances are crossed We should choose working points very carefully to avoid reduction of performances. Our limits seems coming from 13 th -5 th and diagonal resonances 5 th 7 th 10 th 13 th IP1 & IP5 only HLLHCV1.0 optic

9 D.BanfiBB meeting9 Round 15cm, 2.2E11, 690μrad

10 D.BanfiBB meeting10 Round 15cm, 2.2E11, 650μrad

11 D.BanfiBB meeting11 Round 15cm, 2.2E11, 590μrad

12 D.BanfiBB meeting12 Round 15cm, 2.2E11, 540μrad

13 D.BanfiBB meeting13 Round 15cm, 2.2E11, 490μrad

14 D.BanfiBB meeting14 Round 15cm, 2.2E11, 440μrad

15 D.BanfiBB meeting15 Round 15cm, 2.2E11, 390μrad Crossing angle changes the separation (strength) of BB-LR that strongly affect the tails. Core particles are almost not affected. DA mainly dominated by long range effects Larger angle weaker long range effects  better DA We are confined between 13th and 5 th order resonances

16 16 Round optics15 cm, 590μrad: intensity scan IP1 & IP5 only HLLHCV1.0 optic Changing Intensity we change Head-on BB and Long Range BB Beam-beam Forces proportional to Intensity  DA depends linearly with Intensity

17 17 Round optics15 cm, 590μrad: intensity scan IP1 & IP5 only HLLHCV1.0 optic

18 18 Round optics15 cm, 590μrad: intensity scan IP1 & IP5 only HLLHCV1.0 optic

19 19 Round Optics: Multipolar Errors 5 th 7 th 10 th 13 th d sep = 12.5  Multipolar errors give a reduction of 0.5  in DA

20 20 Round Optics: details for15cm DA is 6  but particles at 4-5 σ are affected by the BBLR show higher diffusion rates Effect driven by 5 th and 13 th order resonance 5 th 7 th 10 th 13 th IP1 & IP5 only HLLHCV1.0 optic

21 21 HLLHCV1.0: effect of IP8 Int ppb 10 11 DA No IP8 1.08.41 2.26.42 Full head-on from IP8 DQ = - 0.01 Three cases for IP8 LRs at 3m  *:  IP8 = 610  rad  all LR d sep > 43   IP8 = 290  rad  2 LR with d sep 20  all others LR d sep > 38   IP8 = 70  rad  2 LR with d sep 5  all others LR d sep > 15  IP1 & IP5 only HLLHCV1.0 optic

22 22 HLLHCV1.0: effect of IP8 No IP8 IP8 (-340mrad ext x-angle - 270 μrad septrometer) IP8 (-560 μrad ext x-angle + 270μrad spectrometer) IP8 (- 340 μrad+270μr ad spectrometer) 1.08.418.077.937.72 2.26.426.286.065.86 IP1 & IP5 only HLLHCV1.0 optic IP1&5 + IP8 Full head-on from IP8 DQ = - 0.01 Three cases for IP8 LRs at 3m  *:  IP8 = 610  rad   DA = -0.35@2.2e11 (0.14@1.1e11)   IP8 = 290  rad   DA = -0.5@2.2e11 (0.36@1.1e11)   IP8 = 70  rad   DA = -0.7@2.2e11 (0.56@1.1e11) 

23 23 Older SLHCV3.1b vs new HLLHCV1.0 Preliminary Results New HLLHCV1.0 round 15 cm optic has been tested and give DA results compatible with older SLHCV3.1b

24 24 HLLHCV1.0 vs SLHCV3.1b All studies have been performed also with Lifetrac The two codes show good agreement (10-20% variations) 0.5  reduction for this case comes from the IP8 contribution on in Lifetrac simulations. IP8 contribution with 6 10  rad x-angle

25 25 Nominal scenario: error effect Multipolar Errors do have an impact of 0.5-1.0  at nominal intensity  for 15 cm optics. Above 600  rad x-angle multipolar errors not anymore in shadow of Beam-Beam Nominal scenario is at limit of 6  DA for nominal amplitude. IP1 & IP5 only HLLHCV1.0 optic

26 26 40 cm 33 cm 15 cm 10 cm 1.7e11 1.5e11 1.1e11 1e11 16  14  11  Courtesy R. De Maria β* leveling scenario at 5E34 * leveling with round optics and full crabbing in IP1 and IP5 We modelled 4 optics during betatron squeeze Beam parameters follow the luminosity leveling at 5E34 (7.5E34)

27 27 β* leveling scenario at 5E34 We Define: Minimum crossing angle acceptable to ensure 6  DA Maximum Intensity acceptable per  * step during leveling Leveled Luminosity Intensity ppb at  * = 40cm Intensity ppb at  * = 33cm Intensity ppb at  * =15cm Intensity ppb at  * =10cm 5E+341.7E+111.5E+111.1E+111E+11 7.5E+34x2.1E+111.5E+11x Two cases 5e34 and 7.5e34

28 28 β* leveling at 5E34: 40 cm <400  rad Minimum crossing angle <400  rad at 1.7E11 At nominal angle all Intensities are acceptable 590  rad

29 29 β* leveling at 5E34: 33 cm <400  rad Minimum crossing angle <400  rad at 1.5E11 590  rad

30 30 β* leveling at 5E34: 15 cm 450  rad Minimum crossing angle 450  rad for β* levelling (int 1.1E11) At nominal x-angle 590μrad limited to int 2.4E11 (optimistic case) 590  rad

31 31 β* leveling at 5E34: 10 cm 550  rad Minimum crossing angle 550  rad for β* levelling (int 1E11) At nominal x-angle 590μrad limited to int 1.4E11 590  rad

32 32 β* leveling summary for 5e34 Lumi Leveled: Nominal and reduced x-angle Nominal scenario with leveled lumi at 5e34 at 590μrad is robust thanks to b* leveling DA always above 7  1.7e11 1.5e11 1.1e11 1e11 2.2e11

33 33 β* leveling summary 7.5e34 Lumi leveled 1.5e11 2.2e11 Nominal scenario with leveled lumi at 7.5e34 at 590μrad is robust thanks to  * leveling DA always above 7 

34 34 Round optics β* leveling summary

35 35 Outlook Round optics IP1(ATLAS) and IP5 (CMS) main drivers: Crossing angle scans Intensity scans Effect of crab crossing Impact of multipolar errors Impact of IP8 (LHCb) Summary of 5e34 and 7.5e34 Lumi scenarios Flat optics: Crossing angle scans Intensity scans Multipolar Errors Summary and Future studies

36 SLHCV3.1b Flat Optic: x-angle scan Different behaviour due to tune shift due to the not perfect HV passive compensation between IP1 and IP5. Flat optics need in general LARGER d sep to obtain same DA Linear dependency typical for round is not valid for flat (S-shape DA vs angle)! IP1 &IP5 only No Crab Crossing Round Optics Flat Optics d sep = 16.5  d sep = 12.5 

37 SLHCV3.1b Flat Optics: Intensity scans Different behaviour due to tune shift along the diagonal: not perfect HV passive compensation between IP1 and IP5. Linear dependency typical for round is not for flat with strong LRs! Linear dependency for weaker LR, reduced tune shift! IP1 &IP5 only, SHLCV3.1b optics No Crab

38 D.BanfiBB meeting38 Flat 7.5cm/30cm, 2.2E11, 690μrad

39 D.BanfiBB meeting39 Flat 7.5cm/30cm, 2.2E11, 640μrad

40 D.BanfiBB meeting40 Flat 7.5cm/30cm, 2.2E11, 590μrad

41 D.BanfiBB meeting41 Flat 7.5cm/30cm, 2.2E11, 540μrad

42 D.BanfiBB meeting42 Flat 7.5cm/30cm, 2.2E11, 490μrad

43 D.BanfiBB meeting43 Flat 7.5cm/30cm, 2.2E11, 440μrad

44 D.BanfiBB meeting44 Flat 7.5cm/30cm, 2.2E11, 390μrad

45 D.BanfiBB meeting45 Flat 7.5cm/30cm, 2.2E11 AT each  * step: HO changes and loss of partial HV passive compensation of LR changes  Tune shift  Footprint moves in the tune space We Cross different resonances (10 th, 7 th …) DA depends on driving resonances (might explain S-shape of DA) For flat optics case we will need to shift tunes back to best WP at each  * step (need to define optimal working points per step with simulations)

46 SLHCV3.1b Flat Optics 7.5cm/30cm Linear dependency typical for round is not for flat with strong LRs! Linear dependency for weaker LR, reduced tune shift we go back to linear bahaviour! Studies need to be repeated with tune scans ! Changing optics (beta ratio) changes the x-angle dependence IP1 &IP5 only, SHLCV3.1b optic No Crab For flat optics case we will need to shift tunes back to best WP at each  * step (need to define optimal working points per step)

47 47 Summary Without β* levelling: at nominal crossing angle of 590μrad (IP1&5 only) the nominal intensity of 2.2E11 is at the limit below 6  DA (details in T. Pieloni talk Thursday) Lifetrac and Sixtrack are consistent and give equivalent results (within 10-20%) Round Optics For both codes with β* luminosity levelling at 5E34 the baseline scenario for round optic is robust: DA always above 7σ  room for an important reduction of crossing angle if needed (down to 450μrad) or allow for higher intensities For both codes with β* luminosity levelling at 7.5E34 the scenario for round optic is also robust: DA always above 6σ Multipolar errors reduce DA by 0.5-1σ  (see details in T. Pieloni talk Thursday “DA criteria”) IP8 contribution to DA: deterioration of maximum 0.5 σ expected in the worst case scenario Flat Optics Flat optics behaves differently from round due to partial LR compensation broken (H/V)  Important tune shift at each β* step  working point optimization fundamental to improve DA  With β* leveling we might not need extra separation.  Possible scenarios without crab-crossing and β* leveling (R. Tomas talk Thursday)

48 48 What is still needed: future Studies Round Optics: ostill some studies needs to be done Impact of Higher Chromaticity Impact of Landau Octupoles (positive/negative effects) Imperfect machine (orbit errors, beta beating, coupling…) Sensitivity to working point Complete study of sensitivity to IP2and IP8 to evaluate/propose x-angles Flat Optics: needs still many studies Similar Exercise as for the round optics

49 49 β* leveling summary: Sixtrack & Lifetrac 1.7e11 1.5e11 1.1e11 1e11 2.2e11

50 50

51 51 BackUp Slides

52 Same exercise as for round over several optics: Several Optics Explored to identify Intensity limits and minimum crossing angles! Possible scenarios with  * leveling without crab crossing and reduced x-angle proposed (see R. Tomas talk Thursday “Alternative Scenarios”) BBLR compensation studies on-going (see A. Valishev “BBLR Compensation”, Y. Papaphilippou “BBLR..”)

53 53 HLLHCV1.0: All error, 60 seeds DA computed for 60 error seeds on HLLHCV1.0 optics. Spread of 2σ, quoting the minimum DA may be a little pessimistic. IP1 &IP5 only 60 seed error HLLHCV1.0 optic

54 D.BanfiBB meeting54 Flat 7.5: FMA fixed Intensity

55 D.BanfiBB meeting55 Flat 7.5: FMA fixed Intensity

56 7.5 optics

57 D.BanfiBB meeting57 Separations LHCb spec on IP5IP8IP1IP2IP5IP8IP1IP2 LHCb spec off

58 58 HLLHCV1.0: single error effect Error family tested singularly on HLLHCV1.0 and minimum DA for all the 60 seeds is computed. No single family of error strongly dominate the DA IP1 &IP5 only 60 seed error HLLHCV1.0 optic

59 59 Round optics - Simulation Details optics files: SLHC optics: /afs/cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/SLHCV3.1b/opt_0400_0400thin.madx beta*=40cm in IR1/5, beta*=10 m in IR2/8cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/SLHCV3.1b/opt_0400_0400thin.madx /afs/cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/SLHCV3.1b/opt_0330_0330thin.madx beta*=33cm in IR1/5, beta*=10 m in IR2/8cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/SLHCV3.1b/opt_0330_0330thin.madx /afs/cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/SLHCV3.1b/opt_0150_0150thin.madx beta*=15cm in IR1/5, beta*=10 m in IR2/8cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/SLHCV3.1b/opt_0150_0150thin.madx /afs/cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/SLHCV3.1b/opt_0100_0100thin.madx beta*=10cm in IR1/5, beta*=10 m in IR2/8cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/SLHCV3.1b/opt_0100_0100thin.madx HLLHC optics: /afs/cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/HLLHCV1.0/opt_round_thin.madx error tables: for old simulations: /afs/cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/SLHCV3.1b/errors/IT_errortable_v3 target error table for the new IT /afs/cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/SLHCV3.1b/errors/D1_errortable_v1 target error table for the new D1 /afs/cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/SLHCV3.1b/errors/D2_errortable_v1 target error table for the new D2 /afs/cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/SLHCV3.1b/errors/Q4_errortable_v1 target error table for the new Q4 in IR1 and IR5cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/SLHCV3.1b/errors/Q4_errortable_v1 /afs/cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/SLHCV3.1b/errors/Q5_errortable_v0 target error table for the new Q5 in IR1 and IR5 and IR6 new error study: /afs/cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/HLLHCV1.0/errors/IT_errortable_v3_spec";! target error table for the new IT /afs/cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/HLLHCV1.0/errors/D1_errortable_v1_spec";! target error table for the new D1 /afs/cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/HLLHCV1.0/errors/D2_errortable_v5_spec ";! target error table for the new D2 /afs/cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/HLLHCV1.0/errors/Q4_errortable_v1_spec”;! target error table for the new Q4 in IR1 and IR5 /afs/cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/HLLHCV1.0/errors/Q5_errortable_v0_spec”;! target error table for the new Q5 in IR1 and IR5 and IR6 IP8 conf: nominal crossing angle sep = 0, solenoid on at nominal field 21 slices

60 D.BanfiBB meeting60 Flat 7.5: FMA fixed Intensity

61 D.BanfiBB meeting61 Flat 7.5: FMA fixed Intensity

62 D.BanfiBB meeting62 Flat 7.5: FMA fixed Intensity

63 D.BanfiBB meeting63 Flat 7.5: FMA fixed Intensity

64 64 β* leveling at 7.5E34: 33 cm 380  rad Minimum crossing angle 380  rad at 2.2E11 IP1 &IP5 only SHLCV3.1b optic Fully Crabbed No error

65 65 β* leveling at 7.5E34: 15 cm 590  rad490  rad Minimum crossing angle 490  rad for β* levelling (int 1.5E11) At nominal x-angle 590μrad limited to int 2.4E11 IP1 &IP5 only SHLCV3.1b optic Fully Crabbed No error

66 66 Round Optics: Multipolar Errors 5 th 7 th 10 th 13 th 5 th 7 th 10 th 13 th IP1 and IP5 only. 6  DA for nominal 15 cm optic! 6  DA for nominal 10 cm optic only for intensity < 2E11 d sep = 12.0  d sep = 12.5 

Download ppt "Beam-beam effects for round and flat optics: DA simulations D.Banfi, J.Barranco, T.Pieloni, A.Valishev Acknowledgement: R.DeMaria,M.Giovannozzi,"

Similar presentations

Beam-Beam Effects for FCC-ee at Different Energies: at Different Energies: Crab Waist vs. Head-on Dmitry Shatilov BINP, Novosibirsk FCC-ee/TLEP physics.

Beam-Beam Effects for FCC-ee at Different Energies: at Different Energies: Crab Waist vs. Head-on Dmitry Shatilov BINP, Novosibirsk FCC-ee/TLEP physics.
Long-range beam-beam compensation at HL-LHC Tatiana Rijoff, Frank Zimmermann ColUSM #19 - 01/03/2013.

Long-range beam-beam compensation at HL-LHC Tatiana Rijoff, Frank Zimmermann ColUSM # /03/2013.
Beam-beam studies for Super KEKB K. Ohmi & M Tawada (KEK) Super B factories workshop in Hawaii 20-23 Apr. 2005.

Beam-beam studies for Super KEKB K. Ohmi & M Tawada (KEK) Super B factories workshop in Hawaii Apr
Simulations that Explain and Predict Beam-Beam Effects in the Tevatron Alexander Valishev Fermilab, Batavia, IL 60510 LARP Mini-Workshop on Beam-Beam Compensation.

Simulations that Explain and Predict Beam-Beam Effects in the Tevatron Alexander Valishev Fermilab, Batavia, IL LARP Mini-Workshop on Beam-Beam Compensation.
Beam-beam simulations M.E. Biagini, K. Ohmi, E. Paoloni, P. Raimondi, D. Shatilov, M. Zobov INFN Frascati, KEK, INFN Pisa, SLAC, BINP April 26th, 2006.

Beam-beam simulations M.E. Biagini, K. Ohmi, E. Paoloni, P. Raimondi, D. Shatilov, M. Zobov INFN Frascati, KEK, INFN Pisa, SLAC, BINP April 26th, 2006.
Beam-Beam Optimization for Fcc-ee at High Energies (120, 175 GeV) at High Energies (120, 175 GeV) Dmitry Shatilov BINP, Novosibirsk 11 December 2014, CERN.

Beam-Beam Optimization for Fcc-ee at High Energies (120, 175 GeV) at High Energies (120, 175 GeV) Dmitry Shatilov BINP, Novosibirsk 11 December 2014, CERN.
* IP5 IP1 IP2 IP8 vertical crossing angle at IP8 R. Bruce, W. Herr, B. Holzer Acknowledgement: S. Fartoukh, M. Giovannozzi, S. Redaelli, J. Wenninger.

* IP5 IP1 IP2 IP8 vertical crossing angle at IP8 R. Bruce, W. Herr, B. Holzer Acknowledgement: S. Fartoukh, M. Giovannozzi, S. Redaelli, J. Wenninger.
The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.

The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.
The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.

The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.
October 4-5, 2010 1 Electron Lens Beam Physics Overview Yun Luo for RHIC e-lens team October 4-5, 2010 Electron Lens.

October 4-5, Electron Lens Beam Physics Overview Yun Luo for RHIC e-lens team October 4-5, 2010 Electron Lens.
Simulation of direct space charge in Booster by using MAD program Y.Alexahin, A.Drozhdin, N.Kazarinov.

Simulation of direct space charge in Booster by using MAD program Y.Alexahin, A.Drozhdin, N.Kazarinov.
Beam Commissioning WG, 10 August 2010 1 Luminosity Scans in the LHC S. White.

Beam Commissioning WG, 10 August Luminosity Scans in the LHC S. White.
The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.

The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.
The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.

The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.
Optimization of Field Error Tolerances for Triplet Quadrupoles of the HL-LHC Lattice V3.01 Option 4444 Yuri Nosochkov Y. Cai, M-H. Wang (SLAC) S. Fartoukh,

Optimization of Field Error Tolerances for Triplet Quadrupoles of the HL-LHC Lattice V3.01 Option 4444 Yuri Nosochkov Y. Cai, M-H. Wang (SLAC) S. Fartoukh,
Beam-Beam and e-Cloud in RHIC Oct. 6, 2015 Haixin Huang, Xiaofeng Gu, Yun Luo.

Beam-Beam and e-Cloud in RHIC Oct. 6, 2015 Haixin Huang, Xiaofeng Gu, Yun Luo.
The HiLumi LHC Design Study (a sub-system of HL-LHC) is co-funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme 7 Capacities Specific Programme,

The HiLumi LHC Design Study (a sub-system of HL-LHC) is co-funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme 7 Capacities Specific Programme,
The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.

The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.
Flat-beam IR optics José L. Abelleira, PhD candidate EPFL, CERN BE-ABP Supervised by F. Zimmermann, CERN Beams dep. Thanks to: O.Domínguez. S Russenchuck,

Flat-beam IR optics José L. Abelleira, PhD candidate EPFL, CERN BE-ABP Supervised by F. Zimmermann, CERN Beams dep. Thanks to: O.Domínguez. S Russenchuck,
Luminosity of the Super-Tau-Charm Factory with Crab Waist D. Shatilov BINP, Novosibirsk TAU’08 Workshop, Satellite Meeting “On the Need for a Super-Tau-Charm.

Luminosity of the Super-Tau-Charm Factory with Crab Waist D. Shatilov BINP, Novosibirsk TAU’08 Workshop, Satellite Meeting “On the Need for a Super-Tau-Charm.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google