1 / 20

Possible EMMA upgrades

This presentation outlines various proposed upgrades for the EMMA facility, categorized into immediate, long-term, and very long-term enhancements. It emphasizes strategies for improving injection, acceleration, and diagnostics, highlighting benefits such as better beam compatibility, increased running time, and advanced experimental capabilities. Key upgrade aspects include the addition of BPMs, optimization of the injection line, and potential modifications for enhanced acceleration. Collaboration and further ideas from the community are encouraged to maximize EMMA's performance and application potential.

galya
Télécharger la présentation

Possible EMMA upgrades

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. Possible EMMA upgrades • Bruno Muratori on behalf of all EMMA upgrade authors • Only few slides on behalf of all the possible EMMA upgrades so far – any more ideas are welcome ! • Three kinds of upgrades • Immediate & short term (1-2 years) (ST) • Long term (2-5 years) (LT) • Very long term (5+ years) (VLT) • Change footprint of EMMA or not ? → 6 upgrade types … Move EMMA ? • Different injector for EMMA ?

  2. More EMMA running time (ST) • Everyone • Made good progress, but still much to accomplish • Basics: tune/ToF vs. Energy, injection for all energies • Address machine errors • Serpentine acceleration, explore parameters • More advanced experiments • Benefits are clear • Cost is the cost of running ALICE as an injector • Have at least two years worth of experiments • No additional requirements

  3. Inj. line additional diagnostics (ST) N. Bliss, C. Hill, C. Johnstone Emma - Module 30 - moving WCM and addition EBPM for injection line Benefits: Better injection into EMMA & can tell incoming angle precisely Cost & effort: £8500 + VAT & 0.12 sy Timescale: 3 months to build No additional requirements

  4. Extraction / diagnostic line (ST) • B. Muratori, S. Jamison • Addition of extra components to line: • Transverse deflecting cavity (~ £ 200k) • Collimators / EO (~ £ 20k) • Benefits: Better diagnostic abilities, collimators important when beam off closed orbit • Cost & effort: (~ £ 20k + £ 200k) & 0.2 + 1.5 sy • Timescales: (5 + 12 months) • No additional requirements

  5. Remote control room (ST) C. Johnstone, S. Smith Remote desktop connections so EMMA can be controlled from elsewhere Benefits: Great collaboration enterprise & makes EMMA better known & promotes expertise exchange Cost & effort: ? No additional requirements

  6. BPM VME cards (ST) • A. Kalinin • Have all the originally designed BPMs • Benefits: Fully instrumented machine • More information to diagnose error sources • Better understand actual lattice compared to model • Cost & effort: • 40 BPMs × £ 1.25k • Procurement: £ 50k + VAT • 0.7 sy • No additional requirements

  7. Inj. matching improvement (ST) I. Kirkman, S. Machida Add another BPM just before the septum. Redesign the last part of injection line for better optical matching. Benefits: Better injection matching (orbit and optics) into EMMA. Cost & effort: ? Timescale: ? No additional requirements

  8. Kicker upgrade (Zobelnetwork) (ST) • K. Marinov • Keep existing kicker magnets, new PSUs needed only • Performance similar to that of delay-line systems • Flat-top pulses (eliminates jitter problems) • Impedance matched system (magnet and PSU can be metres away from each other) • Current rise & fall times: 133 ns demonstrated with 1.4 uH magnet inductance (PAC09); 50-60 ns could be possible with 0.475 uH (existing EMMA kickers) • Feasibility study needed • Cost & effort:much cheaper and easier to build than a delay-line kicker system; low risk • No additional requirements

  9. Increase EMMA acceleration (ST/LT) • P. McIntosh, S. Berg • To increase the acceleration capability (a=1/6 to1/4) • Needs extra CPI IOT & LLRF & waveguide • Benefits: • Acceleration with non-ideal lattice • Had been originally requested & more investigations could be done with higher voltage • Cost & effort: IOT £360k, LLRF £150k, Waveguide £20k, Integration and controls £50k, Procurement= £580k & 2 sy • No additional requirements

  10. Inductive acceleration (LT/VLT) • J. Clarke, J. Garland, N. Marks, H. Owen • Construct & test inductive cavity first • Use this on EMMA • Benefits: • No need for synchronisation with bunch • Continuous injection possible (ADSRs) • Cost & effort: £ 50k & 0.5 sy • No additional requirement (for 1st part, 2nd ?)

  11. Dispersion free-region (ST) • B. Muratori, E. Keil • To create a small dispersion-free straight • Investigating use of multipoles to do this • Remove some cavities / other for space • Benefits: • Show feasibility of dispersion-free (or minimum dispersion) straight • Half-way measure before proper insertion • Cost & effort: Depends on extra components needed • No additional requirement

  12. Insertion in EMMA (LT/VLT) • S. Machida • Create racetrack from EMMA with insertion straight. This is coupled with nonlinear magnets. • Benefits: • makes injection / extraction easier • Continuous injection (ADSR) • Cost & effort: £ 1M + EMMA move & ? • Extra requirement: move EMMA from present location

  13. Vertical Excursion FFAG (LT/VLT) S. Brooks Split energy dependent orbits vertically rather than horizontally in EMMA Replace quadrupoles with new magnets Benefits: Reduction in magnet size for proton / carbon therapy (e.g.) Cost & effort: Procurement £ 1.63M & 9 sy No additional requirement

  14. Slow Acceleration (LT/VLT) • S. Berg • Requires low frequency cavities ~ 3 of them • Cavities fit in usual EMMA cavity space • Benefits: • Studies more common FFAG applications: proton driver, medical, ADSR • Study very different regime with minimal change • Cavities new & very good R & D project • Cost & effort: £ 2-3M & 2sy + build • No additional requirements

  15. Magnetic Spiral Inflector Inj. (VLT) • S. Tzenov, J. Jones • Use upside-down magnetic‘funnel’ to inject into EMMA to achieve continuous injection as in a cyclotron • Requires theoretical study • Benefits: • Continuous injection possible (ADSR) • Cost & effort: £ 0 & 1sy initially to prove concept, later ? • No additional requirements, later → move E.

  16. Addition of multipoles (ST) • Everyone • Add multipoles in EMMA ring • Benefits: • Could do chromaticity correction & correct other unwanted nonlinearities and help insertion • Explore PAMELA-type machine • This is already a requirement for some of the proposals • Cost & effort: depends on how many needed • No additional requirements

  17. Moving EMMA • Y. Saveliev, B. Muratori, others • Move EMMA to SRS outer hall • Use thermionic gun (more reliable) or part of larger accelerator complex with RF gun (of which injection into EMMA is just one application) • Use linac to required injection energy • Benefits: Some of the above proposals require such a move & many more possibilities open • Cost: Big !

  18. Conclusions

  19. Dispersion free-region (ST) • Reverse every other cell • D = D’ = 0 @ 15 MeV • Quad strength ~ same • Not ok at all Energies • Need to check • May be done better • Remove some cavities • Introduce sextupoles … • Only works at one energy • Destroys other energies • Sextupoles too strong ! • No good at all ?

More Related