1. LIUWG 21-02-2008Davide Tommasini ALTERNATIVES FOR D1s Requirements Normal conducting (resistive) Superferric iron dominated Superconducting costheta Side by side Conclusions

2. LIUWG 21-02-2008Davide Tommasini Requirements Magnet gap120 mm BL @ injection1.7 Tm per interaction side BL @ top energy27 Tm per interaction side Good Field Regionradius 50 mm dB/B in GFR at injection± 510 -4 dB/B in GFR at top energy± 210 -4

3. LIUWG 21-02-2008Davide Tommasini by Mikko Karppinen Resistive Conductor : Copper, water cooled Nominal field : B = 1.4 T Nominal current : I = 850 A, 2x80 turns Magnetic length : L mag = 3.2 m, 6 magnets per side Number of Magnets : 24 + 2 spares

4. LIUWG 21-02-2008Davide Tommasini Superferric Conductor : NbTi, operating at 4.2 K Nominal field : B = 1.4 T Nominal current : I = 8500 A, 2x8 turns Magnetic length : L mag = 3.2 m, 6 magnets per side Number of magnets : 24 + 2 spares

5. LIUWG 21-02-2008Davide Tommasini by Jens Erik Bruer & Ezio Todesco Cosine Theta Conductor : Nb-Ti, LHC Inner layer conductor Nominal field : B = 4.5 T, operating at 1.9 K Nominal current : I = 10560 A, 2x31 turns Magnetic length : L mag = 6 m, 1 magnet per side Number of magnets : 4 + 1 spare

6. LIUWG 21-02-2008Davide Tommasini by Glyn Kirby Cosine Theta

7. LIUWG 21-02-2008Davide Tommasini Side by side Resistive 65 kW * 24 = 1.6 MW Magnets cost = 8 MCHF Power cost / year = 480 kCHF (5000 h, 60 CHF/MWh) Superconducting 50 W per magnet = 100 W per point @ 1.9 K Magnets cost including cryostats < 5 MCHF Superferric 10 W per magnet at 4.5 K = 120 W per point @ 4.2 K Magnets cost including cryostats = 6 MCHF Detail of cost estimate by Mikko (resistive), Davide (superferric), Paolo (superconducting) SAMESCALESAMESCALE

8. LIUWG 21-02-2008Davide Tommasini A definitive best ?

9. LIUWG 21-02-2008Davide Tommasini Conclusions AlternativeAdvantagesDrawbacks Resistive « easy » procurement Excellent field quality Plug-in with present layout Investment costs Running costs Total length Superferric Excellent field quality Running costs Low cryogenic consumption Total length Cryogenic links Modified powering Superconducting Investment cost Running costs Compactness (length) Cryogenic consumption Non linear field effects Cryogenic links Modified powering