BDS report BDS Area leaders Deepa Angal-Kalinin, Hitoshi Yamamoto, Andrei Seryi
Turpin, Amber, Food Columnist has reference to this Academic Journal, PHwiki organized this Journal BDS report BDS Area leaders Deepa Angal-Kalinin, Hitoshi Yamamoto, Andrei Seryi VLCW06, Vancouver, July 19-22, 2006 Contents Important design updates since Bangalore Cost of baseline in addition to other configurations Plans Design updates since Bangalore Prototyping SC magnets as long as 14mr FD Evaluation of losses in extraction lines Detailed design of crab cavities Design of anti-solenoid & tail-folding octupoles Wakes in vacuum chamber Studies of SUSY reach SR backscattering in 2mrad extraction Evaluation of downstream diagnostics Work on 0mrad case 2mrad extraction magnet brainstorm More updates & more details in BDS R&D talk
This Particular University is Related to this Particular Journal
FD14: SD0/OC0 prototype QD0 short model successfully tested earlier BNL FD14 design Sizes optimized as long as detector opening Feedback kicker area Interface region being optimized with as long as ward detector region BNL Focus on 14mr design to push technology Size in addition to interface of shared cryostat being optimized with detector Feedback area being designed Losses in extraction line 100W/m h in addition to s-on limit Losses are mostly due to SR. Beam loss is very small 100W/m Losses are due to SR in addition to beam loss J. Carter, I. Agapov, G.A. Blair, L. Deacon (JAI/RHUL), A.I. Drozhdin, N.V. Mokhov (Fermilab), Y.M. Nosochkov, A.A. Seryi (SLAC) 20mrad 2mrad 20mr: losses < 100W/m at 500GeV CM in addition to 1TeV CM 2mr: losses are at 100W/m level as long as 500GeV CM in addition to exceed this level at 1TeV Radiation conditions in addition to shielding to be studied 250GeV Nominal, 0nm offset 45.8kW integr. loss
Crab cavity Right: earlier prototype of 3.9GHz deflecting (crab) cavity designed in addition to build by Fermilab. Left: Cavity modeled in Omega3P, to optimize design of the LOM, HOM in addition to input couplers. FNAL T. Khabibouline, L.Bellantoni, et al., SLAC K.Ko et al., Daresbury P. McIntosh, G.Burt, et al. Collaboration of FNAL, SLAC in addition to UK labs is working on the design. Submitted coordinated UK & US plans to design in addition to build ILC compatible crab cavity & develop phase stabilization Tail folding octupoles & antisolenoids Antisolenoids (needed as long as both IRs to compensate solenoid coupling locally) with High Temperature Superconductor coils Superferric TFOs ( as long as beam halo h in addition to ling) with modified serpentine pattern can achieve 3T equivalent at r=10mm BNL, P.Parker et al. Wakes in vacuum chamber Karl Bane Emittance growth as long as SS vacuum chamber is unacceptably large Partial change to Cu or Al chamber in addition to optimization of aperture reduces the growth to ~5% as long as 1s initial offset Misalignments of vacuum chamber can cause emittance growth require further R&D IP emittance growth in BDS as long as 1 sigma initial offset, SS vacuum chamber 80% growth too large
Benchmarks as long as evaluation of ILC detectors Physics Benchmarks as long as the ILC Detectors, hep-ex/0603010, M. Battaglia, T. Barklow, M. E. Peskin, Y. Okada, S. Yamashita, P. Zerwas Reaction which cares most about crossing angle is Detection is challenged by copious which require low angle tagging. Tagging is challenged by background from pairs in addition to presence of exit hole Study of SUSY reach SUSY reach is challenged as long as the large crossing angle when Dm (slepton-neutralino) is small Studies presented at Bangalore (V.Drugakov) show that as long as 20mrad+DID (effectively ~40mrad as long as outgoing pairs), due to larger pairs background, one cannot detect SUSY dark matter if Dm=5GeV The cases of 20 or 14mrad with anti-DID have same pairs background as 2mrad. Presence of exit hole affects detection efficiency slightly. The SUSY discovery reach may be very similar in these configurations Several groups are studying the SUSY reach, results may be available after Vancouver Backscattering of SR FD produce SR in addition to part will hit BYCHICMB surface Total Power = 2.5 kW
Downstream diagnostics evaluation (1) Ken Moffeit, Takashi Maruyama, Yuri Nosochkov, Andrei Seryi, Mike Woods (SLAC), William P. Oliver (Tufts University), Eric Torrence (Univ. of Oregon) GEANT tracking in extraction lines Study achievable precision of polarization in addition to energy measurements, background & signal/noise, requirements as long as laser, etc. Compton Detector Plane 20mrad 2mrad Downstream diagnostics evaluation (2) comparable with the goal as long as E precision measurements Recent work on 0mr Put together a full optics with downstream diagnostics (FF is optimized as long as this case) Design only as long as 500GeV CM, in addition to bunch separation 307ns or more A lot more design work is needed be as long as e it could be fully evaluated Design as long as 1TeV to be studied Intermediate dump need to collimate tail up to DE=-10% Over-focusing by FD increases the size of disrupted beam starting from DE>10% J.Payet, O.Napoly, C.Rippon, D.Uriot, D.Angal-Kalinin, F.Jackson, M.Alabau-Pons, P.Bambade, J.Brossard, O.Dadoun, C.Rimbault, L.Keller, Y.Nosochkov, A.Seryi, R.Appleby UK-France-SLAC task as long as ce
Brainstorm to design magnets in 2mrad extraction Some magnet sizes on this drawing are tentative Brainstorm as long as 2mrad magnets Recent suggestions B1 beamstrahlung > 2m Vladimir Kashikhin , Brett Parker, John Tompkins, Cherrill Spencer, Masayuki Kumada, Koji Takano, Yoshihisa Iwashita, Eduard Bondarchuk, Ryuhei Sugahara BHEX1 Power @ 1TeV CM is 635-952 KW/magnet. Pulsed may be feasible Power @ 1TeV CM is 1MW/magnet. Temperature rise is very high. Use of HTS Pulsed Further feasibility study in addition to design optimization are needed QEX3 QEX5 should have 6-60GS field! 2 mrad extraction magnet status There were a lot of recent work in addition to ideas Some of recent suggested designs did not take all constraints into account It appears that there is a chance that a working design would be found, if not DC then pulsed magnets There is a lot of work in addition to R&D to be done to come to a reasonable design Implications as long as operation in addition to MPS to be studied, mitigations to be found For the cost, assigned same as QEX6 as long as these magnets
BDS cost status So far havent received: cost of kickers & septa cost of anti-solenoids some CF&S costs not available, e.g. beam dump enclosures use estimated placeholder as long as these costs Some items may be missing, like part of support as long as FD, cost of concrete neutron wall, etc. Overall > 90% complete The design in addition to cost is as long as 1TeV CM Overall cost: BDS 20/2 baseline Cost drivers CF&S Magnet system Vacuum system Installation Dumps & Colls. They are analyzed below Cost of different configuration The WBS includes counts, lengths, or cost fractions from different subsystems of BDS: WBS has ~240 input lines 39columns not including the sub-WBSs This allows calculating the total cost in addition to also the common cost, additional cost as long as 20mrad IR in addition to additional cost as long as 2mrad IR Example
Overall cost split: BDS 20/2 Additional costs as long as IR20 in addition to IR2 are different They are explained below Instrumentation: BDS 20/2 Instrumentation cost splits rather evenly. Difference of the length of extraction line is responsible as long as cost difference of add-IR20 in addition to add-IR2. Large common fraction is due to shared lasers Control system: BDS 20/2 Control cost dominated by the cost of crab cavity which costs somewhat more as long as IR-20. This explains the difference in addition to the smaller common cost.
Vacuum system: BDS 20/2 alt Long large aperture extraction line in addition to additional vacuum chamber as long as beamstrahlung photons cause the cost difference Have two versions of estimation, with different materials This version uses Al in main beamlines, in addition to Cu where larger losses may be expected. The SS chamber used in g extraction line Other version is SS+Cu coated in regions contributing most to the wakes (slightly more expensive) Dumps & collimators: BDS 20/2 Larger number of collimators in 2mrad extraction line in addition to additional photon dump cause the difference Magnet system: BDS 20/2 Larger number of huge extraction line magnets, in addition to its power supplies (PS) cause the cost difference
Power as long as magnets CF&S: BDS 20/2 The common fraction is quite large. The difference come from beam dump halls in addition to mostly from cooling water CF&S conceptual layout Full length service tunnel in BDS solves issues of access, egress, T stability, places as long as PS, access to laser rooms, etc. This solution saves ~percent of BDS cost (could be site dependent).
Towards the TDR Coordinated activity in all three regions Coordinated R&D plans are being submitted as long as next three years in UK in addition to as long as the next year in US For the test facilities, international collaborations as long as ESA in addition to ATF2 the ILC FF model: ATF2 Summary The status of BDS design in addition to cost estimation was presented
Turpin, Amber Food Columnist
Turpin, Amber is from United States and they belong to Metro Santa Cruz and they are from Santa Cruz, United States got related to this Particular Journal. and Turpin, Amber deal with the subjects like Food
Journal Ratings by Rasmussen CollegeRomeoville/Joliet
This Particular Journal got reviewed and rated by Rasmussen CollegeRomeoville/Joliet and short form of this particular Institution is IL and gave this Journal an Excellent Rating.