1 / 14

Interleaved Filling Possibilities

Interleaved Filling Possibilities. Interleaved Filling Possibilities V. Kain , K. Cornelis, J. Wenninger. Introduction Filling the LHC – nominal concept How will we do it? What is the problem? Cycles for next year Summary. Introduction – Filling the LHC (SPS point of view).

nalani
Télécharger la présentation

Interleaved Filling Possibilities

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. Interleaved Filling Possibilities Interleaved Filling Possibilities V. Kain, K. Cornelis, J. Wenninger • Introduction • Filling the LHC – nominal concept • How will we do it? • What is the problem? • Cycles for next year • Summary Oct 9, 2007

  2. Introduction – Filling the LHC (SPS point of view) • 2 different SPS extraction for the 2 LHC rings: • LSS6 → TI 2 → beam 1 • LSS4 → TI 8 → beam 2 • Nominal filling: 12 injections per ring • Can we fill the LHC in an interleaved way? Oct 9, 2007

  3. YES… Can we do it easily, efficiently…? Oct 9, 2007

  4. Introduction - SPS extractions • Large horizontal bump (> 35 mm) • Fast extraction kickers (~ 50 kV in LSS4, ~ 30 kV in LSS6) • Extraction septa Example: LSS4 Oct 9, 2007

  5. Filling the LHC – Ideal World - Nominal Concept • The plan (and reality) is • The Central Timing System controls the production of the LHC beams in the Injector chain via the CBCM (Central Beam and Cycle Manager) • Beams are associated with “users” in the different accelerators to define the magnetic cycles and destinations • Static destinations/ dynamic destinations • E.g.: LHC beam: static destination: SPS dump, dynamic destination: set on the fly (TI 8 dump, TI 2 dump, TI 8/LHC2, TI 2/ LHC1) • Destinations: TI 8/ LHC2, TI 2/LHC1 can only be set by the LHC sequencer • Sequencer requests: beam type (number of batches), target RF bucket, ring • Hence the required supercycles in the SPS • Supercycle: LHC nominal (~ 20 s) • Supercycle: FT + 3 CNGS + pilot (~ 43 s) • Supercycle: pilot (~ 8 s) Oct 9, 2007

  6. But…we can’t do it like this yet… • The SPS power converter control (mugef) is run by the ROCS software • The mugefs do not “understand” destination • The extraction kickers understand destination • Could always pulse both lines plus both extractions….and same scenario as before  expensive • safety issue: the bumps in the SPS • in case of problems during extraction (kicker problems,…) risk to damage both extraction channels • The ROCS system will go FESA or something similar one day • …but not for next year!!!!!!!! Oct 9, 2007

  7. How will we do it? How did we do it? • Instead of one LHC user per SPS supercycle and two destinations… • 2 LHC users per SPS supercycle (with different destinations) • = two LHC cycles per SPS supercycle Example: this year’s interleaved extractions to TT40 and TT60: 2 LHC pilot cycles in the SPS supercycle. 2 users, one for LSS4, one for LSS6. Each transfer line pulsed only once per SC. Total length: 16.8 s Oct 9, 2007

  8. So, what is the problem? (1) • Same supercycle, filling only one ring, takes 2 x as long… • Could be overcome by changing supercycle in case: Example: supercycle for interleaved nominal filling. Total length: 43.2 s SFTPRO + pilot Etc. LHC nominal Pilot interleaved Oct 9, 2007

  9. So, what is the problem? (2) • All supercycles have to be ready • The timing sequences need to be prepared as well (also for different beam types) • To be really efficient: all supercycles should be resident in the hardware • BUT…. • there are not enough users • 24 • already three for CNGS, three for coast, pstart/pstop, SFTPRO,… • the ROCS do not have enough memory • Change supercyle if cycles resident: • 1 – 2 minutes • Change supercycle if cycles not resident: • up to half an hour Oct 9, 2007

  10. Cycles for next year… • For next year we can live with the current situation • Always resident: • Supercycle: FT + 3 CNGS + LHC pilot (length ~ 43 s )…or similar • parallel MD cycle ?!?!? • Supercycle: LHC pilot(length ~ 8 s) • fine for single injections from PS: pilot, one bunch, 4 bunches, 12 bunches, 48 bunches, 72 bunches • Low intensity (up to 12 bunches) interleaved: both lines + bumps pulsing • Other cycles which will be there, but (probably) not resident: • Supercycle: LHC nominal • Supercycle: LHC nominal + LHC nominal Oct 9, 2007

  11. Prospect and proposal • ROCS will migrate in shutdown 2008/2009 • next generation software will understand destination • We would like to have more users 24 + > 8 • despite memory limitation in the ROCS • Clean up the functions for the corrector magnets Oct 9, 2007

  12. Solution for next year… About 1.3 x 1013 protons per extraction Oct 9, 2007

  13. Summary • We can fill the LHC in an interleaved way. • Current limitations for efficient and flexible filling of the LHC: • SPS mugefs (mainly the extraction bumpers) • Solution: • Migration of ROCS to FESA or similar (will come) • More users, at least 8 more Oct 9, 2007

  14. Additional complexity – no showstopper • LSS4: LHC and CNGS extraction • MBIs: main dipole chain in TI 8/ CNGS…same power converter • Electronic switch: current below 1 % of nominal during beam out • Same thing for the MBSG (switch magnet between CNGS and TI 8) • Separate beam transfer needs to be defined for TT40 • Otherwise cannot have CNGS and LHCbeam 2 transfer in the same supercycle • CTIMs to be managed by LSA Oct 9, 2007

More Related