1. Possible EMMA upgrades • Only few slides on behalf of everyone • Individuals will present where possible (if not, please make sure I have relevant information) • 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 ? Bruno Muratori on behalf of all EMMA upgrade authors

2. More EMMA running time (ST) • Everyone • Made good progress, but 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 (~ £ 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 (matching Zobel network) (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) • T. Greenshaw, R. Appleby, J. Clarke, J. Garland, N. Marks, H. Owen, B. Seviour • Construct & test inductive cavity first • Use this on EMMA (not costed) • 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 • 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 cpts 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 !