1 / 11

Introduction / Comments on instrumentation issues

In his 2004 commentary, Marc Ross emphasizes the pressing need for High-Energy Physics (HEP) to tackle instrumentation challenges decisively. The shift of accelerator groups away from HEP towards other fields raises concerns about the lack of intrinsic connection to HEP. He stresses that effective instrumentation is crucial for project planning, costing, and overall machine design. With 10% of project costs attributed to controls, innovative ideas in beam instrumentation can significantly impact project feasibility and performance. A collaborative R&D approach across laboratories is vital for advancing this frontier.

urielle-jenkins
Télécharger la présentation

Introduction / Comments on instrumentation issues

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. Introduction / Comments on instrumentation issues 08.01.2004 Marc Ross

  2. HEP must aggressively attackControls/Instrumentation issues • System challenges are clearly greater for HEP machines • Look at the shift SLAC.DESY.KEK accelerator groups away from HEP toward nuclear/synchrotron radiation/FEL physics and technology • very active growth field • Many accelerator designers have no intrinsic connection with HEP

  3. Expectations for post-decision • Work at labs will be narrowly focused on costing and project planning process • leaving little time (with present staffing) for hard RD / engineering development work • eventually project will be entirely ballistic and detailed subsystem technical ‘down selection’ choices will be locked down • (this may be soon – hopefully) • Your intellectual engagement is vital to allow progress to continue as the above process is engaged. • for instrumentation, new ideas and tests provide the best leverage on machine design ( and cost)

  4. Impact of instrumentation • Typical cost of controls and instrumentation is 10% of project ‘hard’ (non-overhead) cost • For instrumentation, 80%+ will be for position monitors • (for machines like SR/B factories, this is more like 90%) • Real impact is the leverage on other aspects of the design – esp. high cost systems • mechanical, microwave, power

  5. Examples: This is one of the motivations, reasoning behind the development of the initial 2002 RD list: • BPM performance sets linac emittance transport – both for warm and cold designs • beam size monitoring also • beam halo monitoring (if extremely well validated) can reduce cost of the collimation

  6. Very high resolution BPM • A sequence of BPM’s can be used to test • resolution • accuracy • stability • Simple experiment uses 3 in a row – how well does this work? (problems similar to energy spectrometer chicane) • Systematics: • transverse wakefields – from BPM itself and from the nearby vacuum chamber (e.g. bellows) • stray magnetic fields • energy variability • energy deposition – longitudinal wakes • experience with these is invaluable

  7. NLC BPM’s • required performance (resolution, accuracy, stability) demonstrated at SLC/FFTB (200nm resolution ; few micron accuracy) • demonstrations are ‘proof of principle’ only and do not provide real ‘engineering’ guidance for cost/detailed development • multi-bunch performance ? • cavity BPM’s / stripline BPM’s / hybrids • ATF nanoBPM work pushes this hardware closer to its limit – gives insight into the operation of these • (TTF1 has been called a ‘BPM test facility) • FONT / KEK Feedback tests allow tests of the hybrids

  8. Reference Block/BPM support (not shown) - KEK Aug. 08, ’03 KEK H. Yamaoka Higashi, Honda, Tauchi, Yamaoka Al SUS [C-band BPMs must be used in the extraction line because the extracted beam has s_z ~ 10 mm at min e_y] C-band BPM – KEK/Tohoku Hayano, Inoue

  9. 2m beam existing girder Optical anchor ‘struts’ Granite block reference Extraction line stabilization test

  10. TRC R2 • instrumentation RD: “The most critical beam instrumentation, including the intra-train luminosity monitor, must be developed, and an acceptable laser-wire profile monitor must be provided where needed in each design. A vigorous R&D program is mandatory for beam instrumentation in general; it would be appropriate for a collaborative effort between laboratories.” • ITRP will evaluate progress on R2 – of course – • also Maury Tigner’s Global Design Office ‘GDO’ • what has been done?

  11. ETF • (see Mishra from 07.01.2004) • instrumentation frontier can be challenged (at present) without new dedicated machines • beam time needed at B-factory(+linac), SPEAR/ALS, PETRA • not ready for integration related design effort (probably needed during project preparation etc) • ATF is key • multi-bunch • micron sized beams and stability • (also FFTB – no multi-bunch here) • ESA for radiation related issues • halo (collimation) • extraction line

More Related