1 / 12

Minimum emittance from PSB H- injection

Minimum emittance from PSB H- injection. E.Benedetto Input and discussions with (so far): G.Rumolo , C.Bracco , B.Mikulec , J.B. Lallement. Outline. Minimum emittance from H- injection in PSB (is obtained with no transverse painting) : e L4 + De foil + De sc + De mismatch

kueng
Télécharger la présentation

Minimum emittance from PSB H- injection

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. Minimum emittancefrom PSB H- injection E.Benedetto Input and discussions with (so far): G.Rumolo, C.Bracco, B.Mikulec, J.B. Lallement

  2. Outline • Minimum emittancefrom H- injection in PSB (is obtained with no transverse painting) : eL4 +Defoil +Desc+Demismatch • Emittance from Linac4 eL4 • Scattering at the foil Defoil • Space charge Desc • Mismatch errors & ripples Demismatch: beta, disp, trajectory, ripples • BCMS beams • Can we measure small beams? • Wire scanners • SEMgrids, MTVs, IPM,… • Transfer between machines

  3. From Linac4 • Emittance (always rmsnormalized) • Nominal Emittance: from source 0.25um • Assuming some blow-up ~0.35um delivered to PSB • Maximum emittance: • Defined by RFQ acceptance = ~0.35um~0.4um to PSB • Intensity (average): • Nominal: from source 80mA • After RFQ, chopper,…  40mA to PSB • Minimum intensity (inside the 0.35um emittance) • We can assume  20mA to PSB From JB Lallement and M. Vretenar’s presentation @ LIU day

  4. Scattering at the foil • Absolute De(depends on b -function and Nh foil traversals): • Number of passages: • 13turns injection(20mA) + ~7 turns KSW decay (remove beam from foil) = 20passages •  cfr. B. Goddard et al.,Proc. IPAC ‘10, Kyoto: Dex, y= 0.25, 0.15 um for 25 hits (carbon 200 ug/cm2)  assume Defoil <~0.20um From Chiara

  5. Space Charge • No machine experience of injecting <1um beams • We should rely on simulations & scaling for the same DQSC • Curve Emittance vs. Intensity with Linac4 • Simulation campaign ongoing • Depends on: • Laslett tune spread • Working point(and resonance compensation) • Injection & painting schemes • Longitudinal parameters • … EB, Chiara, Vivien, Giovanni, Bettina

  6. Mismatch @ inj., kicker ripples, jitters • Ripples in these elements: • Steerers in BI line • KSWpainting bump • BSW (slow chicane bump) constant B field during injection • will induce offset in injected beam (or in the closed orbit)  cfr. In the production of high intensity beams with H- injection, voluntary Dy to increase vertical emittance • or unwanted painting • Need input from hardware • Will be considered in Chiara’s injection simulations Discussion with Chiara and ABT started

  7. Scraping in PSB • Preliminary consideration:reduces Emittance but also Intensity  no gain in brightness • See today production 50ns BCMS beam • (Scraping is after inj. process  i.e. independent of L2 or L4) • Stays on the same curve Emi vs. Int. • Issues (to be studied): • Losses at >160MeV induce higher activation • Scrapers strength at higher energy (Brho & smaller beam size) • Ok! today <8A @65MeV (power supply can go up to 50A) • Precision of scraping such a tiny beam (if we want to get half of ~0.5-0.6um) need studies & maybe MD with LHCPROBE after LS1? From Bettina

  8. Emittance BCMS beam (~half intensity) Assumption with Linac4 “half-of-the-slope” (cfr. Giovanni’s Slide2, 19/7/13), here for the BCMS curve • Production without scraping • Inject half # of turns • Scattering • (~7+7 foil traversals=14 Vs. 20) • Half the SC tune spread • ~same DQ as today @160MeV • Measurements @160MeV confirm no appreciable blow-up over 150ms plateau for today LHC-type beams of 2-3um(MD 4/6/12 by V.Forte, A.Molodozhenstev) • BUT for a smaller (~0.5-6um) beam • No experience • SpaceCharge simulations needed • IF ripples & mismatch at injection are “small”, we could keep the Linac4 emittance + scattering < 0.6um • Again, this is the open point

  9. Can we measure small beams? • No problem with Wire Scanners in PSB and PS • Enough resolution • May be a problem in the SPS… PS @ extraction LHC50#24b_BC…, Ip=388e10 Vertical s=0.714 en=0.65um(?) PSB @ extraction LHCPROBE, I=1.2e10 Vertical s=1.23 en=0.8um

  10. Can we measure small beams? • SEM grids in BTP line are at the limit LHCPROBE en,x=0.6um en,y=0.8um

  11. Transfer between machines • Emittance dilution due to Injection and Dispersion Mismatch are “absolute”, i.e. independent on the initial Emittance (the betatron mismatch is “relative”) • Impact on smaller beams is higher and given by the mismatch factors: • i.e. half the emittance, twice the blow-up in % • Can we still consider it “zero” in our budget?

  12. Summary • Assuming from Linac4: 20mA (min) in 0.4um (max), the emittance at the end of H- injection is ~0.6um (no SC, no ripple, only scattering). • Space-charge and kicker ripples not taken into account in values above: • ONGOING space-charge simulations (emi vs. Intensity curve) • Need input for ripples & mismatch  to be implemented in inj simulations • For BCMS beam, DQSC ~same as today nominal @160MeV • more confident to keep ~0.6um apart from ripples, inj. mismatch and jitters. • Scraping at >160 MeV may be an issue because of activation, and required scraping precision  need study • No problem to measure ~0.7um with FWS in PSB & PS and enough resolution to go down, SEM grids in the line at the limit. • Transfer between machines: • Injection &Dispersion mismatch for smaller beams have a larger impact on emittance dilution. Can we still consider it “zero”?

More Related