1 / 17

Beam-beam limits: MD proposal

This proposal outlines the goals and operational procedure for a beam-beam experiment, including the characterization of beam-beam performance, specific luminosity, spot sizes, loss rates, beam lifetimes, and tune spectra. The proposed procedure includes a current scan pattern and guidelines for optimization. Data from previous scans and observations are provided.

Télécharger la présentation

Beam-beam limits: MD proposal

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. Beam-beam limits: MD proposal • MD goals • Useful lessons from the Jan 2004 beam-beam experiment • Proposed operational procedure • Numbers/procedures to be clarified W. Kozanecki

  2. MD goals • Characterize current dependence of beam-beam performance • specific luminosity • vertical & horizontal spot sizes in LER & HER (incl. SXM) • loss rates @ collimators in PR12 (HER), PR04 (LER) • beam lifetimes • tune spectra • turn-to-turn centroid (& shape ?) stability, using GC turn sweeper • Determine the bunch-current combination that maximizes the luminosity • for given maximum total currents, this fixes the optimal number of bunches - provided that • the single-bunch behavior scales strictly with the # of bunches • the beam-beam backgrounds (& HOM heating) remain tolerable at full current

  3. Data: 27Jan 04 Current dependence of L & beam sizes: HEB scan By-2 pattern 1320 bunches 10 Apr 04 

  4. Data: 27Jan 04 HEB scan (continued)

  5. Data: 27Jan 04 HEB scan (continued)

  6. Data: 27Jan 04 Current dependence of L & beam sizes: LEB scan By-2 pattern 1320 bunches 10 Apr 04

  7. Data: 27Jan 04 LEB scan (continued)

  8. Data: 27Jan 04 LEB scan (continued)

  9. Operational procedure: general guidelines • Perform experiment in quasi-single-bunch (QSB) mode: • only few, widely-spaced bunches • cleanly separates beam-beam from multibunch issues • minimizes total current • avoids thermal effects  orbit stability, no risk of overtemp trips • avoids RF/LFB trips at the highest bunch currents • choose # bunches so that enough light on SLM/interf./SXM @ lowest Ibunch • Optimize optics for high beam-beam parameters • start with stable machine in delivery (multibunch) mode • go to QSB mode (steer to gold?) • perform full optics optimization in QSB mode • @ nominal Ibunch (favor beam-beam, rather than optical, performance) • tunes, collsion phase, skews, sextupole bumps ( + Decker bumps?) • At each bunch-current setting • reset vertical IP angles in both rings • check SLM / SXM / interferometer settings • optimize tuneson L (trickle off so lifetime measurable ?)

  10. Operational procedure: current scan pattern • Setup in QSB mode at nominal bunch currents • IL = 1.45 mA/b, IH = 0.90 mA/b (full optics optimization) • Take zero-current point • IL = 0.10 mA/b, IH = 0.06 mA/b (beam-beam negligible  measure zero-current spot sizes) • HER current scan: keep IL ~ constant, vary IH • IL ~ 1.45 mA/b (nominal) • Proposed sequence: IH = .1, .3, .5, .7, .8, .9, 1.0,….mA/b (finer steps at top, going ahap) • Optional: repeat @ IL ~ 0.90 mA/b (to understand beam-beam evolution + check consistency) • LER current scan: keep IH ~ constant, vary IL • IH ~ 0.90 mA/b (nominal) • Proposed sequence: IL = .40, .70, 1.00, 1.30, 1.45, 1.50, 1.60,…mA/b Optional: repeat @ IH ~ 0.65 mA/b

  11. Time estimate • Full-current optimization (BBR taking data) • QSB setup & reoptimization @ nominal Ibunch 105’ • injection setup 15’ • steer to gold 45’ • optics optimization 45’ • Zero-current point 15’ • HER current scan 105’ (210’) • 7 points @ nominal IL 7x15’ • repeat at intermediate IL 7x15’ • LER current scan 105’ (210’) • 7 points @ nominal IH 7x15’ • repeat at intermediate IH 7x15’ Total 330’ (540) 6 h (9 h)

  12. Numbers/procedures to be clarified ahead of time • How do we handle the parasitic-crossing aspects of the experiment? • Min/max currents & # bunches ? • Minimum total current ? to get a signal on • LER/HER SLMs + interferometers • LER XSLM • HER GC (we need the LER interferometer!) • Maximum # bunches (QSB) for LFB/TFB to either stay off, or function properly ? • Maximum total current for thermal orbit drifts to remain negligible ? • Trickle - or not ? (lifetime msmst, BLM loss rates, GC expts) • Steer to gold before starting, so that actual, low-I orbits are close to high-current orbits we’ll have then ? • Optimum optical settings may not be the same at low & high Ibunch (bec. of beam-beam)  optimize optics (skews, bumps..) • at high (= normal operating) bunch current (favors beam-beam)? • or at the lowest current (favors optics) ? • Optics characterization beforehand, afterwards, or not at all ? • At lowest & highest bunch currents, compare Lsp in QSB & multibunch (full current) modes? (could be done as part of recovery) • Exercise SXM & GC turn-sweeper DAQ ahead of time

  13. Spare slides

  14. HER-current dependence of L & beam sizes: observations • In single-beam mode, the HER beam sizes are current-independent • When the HER current increases (with the LER fixed @ nominal I+) • the specific luminosity first rises, then turns over. • Lsp reaches a broad maximum around 0.5 mA/b • the specific luminosity is comparable at the highest & lowest HER bunch currents • the dependence of the total luminosity on the beam-current product • exhibits only moderate saturation • is mostly limited by transverse losses (lifetime, beam-beam backgrounds) • the LEB blows up transversely with rising HER current • 65% increase in x, 23% in y @ the SLM/interferometer (wrt single beam) • the evolution of the transverse e+ loss rate is consistent with blowup in both x & y, and confirms a significant Touschek contribution to the LEB lifetime • the HEB experiences both ‘LEB-induced’ & ‘self’ blowup • up to 0.8 mA/b, the x-size remains constant (4 % > single beam), then blows up by an additional ~ 4-7% (8-11% total blowup) • the y-size first decreases (50%  25% blowup, then back up to 40%). Its HER-current dependence largely mirrors that of the specific luminosity • the evolution of the transverse e- loss rate is consistent with the blowup pattern above Data: 27Jan 04

  15. LEB-current dependence of L & beam sizes: observations • In single-beam mode, the LER beam sizes are current-independent • When the LER current increases (with I- fixed @ nominal ) • Lsp remains roughly constant, except at the highest LER current • a 5 % decrease in Lsp is observed for ib+ > 1.0 mA/b • the dependence of the total luminosity on the beam-current product • exhibits only moderate saturation; however, raising the LEB current gains little L • is limited by transverse losses (lifetime, beam-beam backgrounds) • the transverse LEB size • in x: remains constant in the horizontal plane, and is 60-70% larger than in LEB-only mode • in y: varies from 1.2 to 1.3 times its single-beam value as I+ increases • the evolution of the transverse e+ loss rate suggests moderate or no variation of the blowup level with increasing positron current • the transverse HEB size • in x: varies from 1.04 to 1.08 times its single-beam value as I+ increases • in y: rises rapidly with LEB current, up to 1.4 times its single-beam value • both horizontal & vertical loss rates rise sharply for ib+ > 1.2 mA/b Data: 27Jan 04

  16. Specific luminosity Run 4 Luminosity History e+ bunch current Luminosity e- bunch current

  17. 29 Oct-29 Jan 29 Jan –30 Apr 30 Apr – 31 Jul Luminosity vs. I+ * I- 1 Oct 03-31 Jul 04

More Related