1 / 11

WP 4: Crab Cavity

WP 4: Crab Cavity. Ed Ciapala , Erk Jensen BE-RF, CERN. HL-LHC Meeting, CERN, 20 July 2010. Crab cavities: Context. Many bunches require non-zero crossing angle to avoid parasitic collisions and to reduce beam-beam effects;

chandler-sanders
Télécharger la présentation

WP 4: Crab Cavity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WP 4: Crab Cavity Ed Ciapala, Erk Jensen BE-RF, CERN HL-LHC Meeting, CERN, 20 July 2010

  2. Crab cavities: Context • Many bunches require non-zero crossing angle to avoid parasitic collisions and to reduce beam-beam effects; • With non-zero crossing angle, luminosity gain by squeezing beams further is small (red curve below). • Crab cavities can compensate for this geometric effect and thus allow for a luminosity increase of about 50 % at β* of 25 cm. • In addition, crab cavities provide an ideal knob for luminosity levelling; • This allows optimizing for integratedrather than peak luminosity! HL-LHC Meeting WP4: Crab Cavity

  3. Local and Global Scheme • Local Scheme: • Global Scheme: • Advantages: • Only one cavity per beam; • Larger beam separation near IP4; • Elliptical cavity of known technology. • Disadvantages: • Constraining betatron phase advance; • Requires larger collimator settings; • Works only for H or V crossing; • Only 800 MHz or higher fits. • Advantages: • Individual luminosity control at each IP; • Adapted to H or V crossing; • Orbit perturbed only locally; • Could work lower f – better performance. • Disadvantages: • Requires novel Compact Cavities (194 mm separation), which are not validated; • Requires 4 cavities per IP; • What if a cavity trips? HL-LHC Meeting WP4: Crab Cavity

  4. CERN Strategy • Aim ultimately at a significant luminosity increase using the local scheme with compact crab cavities around the IPs. • This requires a substantial R&D program, but first results are encouraging (see below). • To mitigate the risk, and in parallel to the above, design and implement a elliptical cavity in IR4 to obtain measurable luminosity increase in a global scheme. • Conceptual design exists (US-LARP), including coupler, cryostat, wrong-order-mode dampers, ... • Space is available in IR4 (was foreseen for ACN200 system). • What could a test of the KEK crab cavity in SPS tell us? HL-LHC Meeting WP4: Crab Cavity

  5. Collaboration • In order to encourage collaboration and to assure its consistency and continuity, CERN has to take the lead in the world wide Crab Cavity development program. This is also a necessary strong sign to assure partners! • In the past, CERN was merely observer; results obtained by collaborators so far: • US-LARP: design of elliptical cavity system, some 3 compact designs, • EuCARD WP 10.3: specifications, compact cavity design (Lancaster), • KEK-B positive results, compact cavity design (“Kota” cavity). • CERN is in the process of defining the strategy and a work plan (in parallel to ongoing efforts), which it will then adhere to. Expected in September 2010: “Statement of Need”, Initial Cost & Schedule, work plan! • This will allow identification of work packages for partners. • HL-LHC is one important element of the overall strategy (focussing on “design” questions); other elements – coordinated with it – are: • US-LARP and maybe APUL, EuCARD, the French “Grand Emprunt” in Rhône-Alpes region, DoE SBIR & MTTR programs, ...) HL-LHC Meeting WP4: Crab Cavity

  6. Elliptical cavity design Taken from Rama Calaga’s Talk at Chamonix 2010, http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=67839 HL-LHC Meeting WP4: Crab Cavity

  7. Compact cavity designs EUCARD 4-rod cavity (Lancaster) ODU Parallel Bar Cavity KEK Kota Cavity SLAC Half-wave Spoke Resonator Taken from Graeme Burt’s Highlight Talk at EuCARD Annual Meeting, http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=73614 HL-LHC Meeting WP4: Crab Cavity

  8. The possible issues • Will it work? • Machine protection! • Major concern: single turn failure! Requires study! • Collimation efficiency and hierarchy • Initial calculations indicate that this might be OK – still, it requires more study! • Crab cavity induced noise • Phase noise leads to beam offset – requires study! • Impedance, both longitudinal and transverse! • Operational: how to make “invisible”, how to commission? What happens during the ramp? HL-LHC Meeting WP4: Crab Cavity

  9. WP4: Possible design subjects (1/2) Technology Issues HL-LHC Meeting WP4: Crab Cavity

  10. WP4: Possible design subjects (2/2) Beam Issues * Cavity design dependent HL-LHC Meeting WP4: Crab Cavity

  11. WP4: Possible Participants • CERN • Cockcroft Institute (U Lancaster) • US-LARP • KEK • CEA • CNRS • ... HL-LHC Meeting WP4: Crab Cavity

More Related