thursday summary of working group i initial questions i: lhc lumi 2005; 2.9.2005; arcidossooliver...
Post on 17-Jan-2016
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Thursday Summary of Working Group IInitial questions I:
LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso Oliver Brüning 1
3) Hardware design issues:
Question / Topic goal of presentation Potential speaker
magnet lifetime issues how scales the magnet lifetime with radiation and L
general magnet performance issues what is the peak coil field in a dipole for various SC materials Ranko Ostojic or
what is the peak coil field in a quadrupole for various SC materials Louis Walckiers
how does the peak coil field scale with the heat load and L
cos-theta magnet design options how much power can be cooled at 4.5 K Ranko Ostojic or
how much power can be cooled at 1.9K Louis Walckiers
peak field estimates for this design type
field quality estimates for this design type
present questions still to be addressed in future studies
2-in-1 magnet design issues what is the minimum required aperture spacing for a 2-in-1 quadrupole
design Ranko Ostojic orcan a 2-in-1 quadrupole design feature a central hole for the neutron flux
Louis Walckiers
Thursday Summary of Working Group IInitial questions II:
LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso Oliver Brüning 2
3) Hardware design issues:
Question / Topic goal of presentation Potential speaker
race track magnet design options how much power can be cooled at 4.5 K Rama Calaga &
how much power can be cooled at 1.9 K
peak field estimates for this design type Peter McIntyre on structured cable
field quality estimates for this design type magnets with internal cooling
present questions still to be addressed in future studies
levitating magnet design options how much power can be cooled at 4.5 K Peter McIntire
how much power can be cooled at 1.9 K
peak field estimates for this design type
field quality estimates for this design type
present questions still to be addressed in future studies
Issues related to crossing angles what is the required transverse field for crab cavities? Frank Zimmermannhow does the required longitudinal space of a Crab cavity scale with the required peak transverse field?how does the noise excitation in a Crab cavity scale with the required peak field?
what are the options for correcting the dispersion due to a large x-ing
minimum required x-ing angle from long-range beam-beam point of view
Related questions given to the WG by the Work Shop Organizers
need of technological improvement of the triplet magnets
layout and compatibility with the existing experimental devices
Thursday Summary of Working Group Imain points from morning session for working group I:
LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso Oliver Brüning 3
-create a repository for different layout configurations and optics solutions common data base for future studies common reference for future discussions will be discussed on Friday
-interesting modular proposal for maximizing F by additional dipole inside experiment all insertion scenarios benefit should be pursued independently of final IR design
-NiTi is not a viable solution for IR upgrade is this true for all IR layout and optics proposals (e.g. low gradient triplet solution)? will be discussed on Friday
Thursday Summary of Working Group Imain points from Peter McIntyre’s presentation I:
LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso Oliver Brüning 4
-two options for dealing with the increased heat load inside the triplet magnets:
1) construct more robust triplet magnets that can tolerate the increased peak heat load
2) reduce the peak heat load with an upgrade of the TAS absorber:
Thursday Summary of Working Group Imain points from Peter McIntyre’s presentation II:
LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso Oliver Brüning 5
1) construct more robust triplet magnets that can tolerate the increased peak heat load
structured cable design with Ni3Sn and Inconel 718 jacket
Iron less quadrupoles for Q1 with 340 T/m; 40mm aperture; and expected heat tolerances of > 50 W/m
Strong mechanical support and low inductance for “large” quench induced voltages
Confidence that Ni3Sn is matured technology by 2010?
Disuccion: Inconel jacket could also be used with NiTi?
Design Q1 using structured cable
6-on-1 cabling of Nb3Sn strand around thin-wall inconel X750 spring tube
Draw within a thicker inconel 718 jacket
Interior is not impregnated – only region between cables in winding
Volumetric cooling to handle volumetric heating from particle losses
Thursday Summary of Working Group Imain points from Peter McIntyre’s presentation III:
LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso Oliver Brüning 7
2) reduce the peak heat load with an upgrade of the TAS absorber:
levitated dipole coil design with opening at room temperatureB = 8.7 T at 4.5 K; Ni3Sn only at inner coil NiTi otherwise
interesting magnet design for a magnetic TAS option
D1: levitated-pole dipole
Cold iron pole piece, warm iron flux return.
Cancel Lorentz forces on coils, pole steel.
8.7 T
4.5 K
Thursday Summary of Working Group Imain points from Rama Calaga’s presentation:
LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso Oliver Brüning 9
-compensate Lorentz force on the coils by using two race track coils 15 T field for Ni3Sn and 8T for NiTi
-open mid plane and possibility of installing dedicated absorber material
Interesting option for magnetic TAS design
Who is following this research up? US-LARP has decided to suspend dipole R&D and to concentrate on quadrupoles!
OMD Design Challenges
Counteracting large vertical forces between the coils
without any structure appears to be a challenge.
Good field quality maybe a challenging task due to large
midplane gap.
Large Bpeak/Bcenter ratio in magnets with large midplane
gap may reduce operating field.
The optimum design may look totally different.
In earlier “OMD designs”, absorbers were placed between the the coils. Secondary showers from the absorber deposited a large amount of radiation and heat load on the coils. This problem is fixed in the new design.
A True Open Midplane Design
Thursday Summary of Working Group Imain points from Frank Zimmermann’s presentation I:
LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso Oliver Brüning 12
-geometric reduction factor can be reduced with the help of CRAB cavities (transverse kick alternative to JPK dipole)
-LHC parameters requires between 4MV (small crossing angle) and 100 MV voltage for f = 400MHz 800 MHz
-small emittance blowup requires turn-by-turn phase control of better than 0.01 degrees
-CRAB cavities require sufficient large beam separation ( installation after D2 plus dog leg separation?)
RF Deflector( Crab Cavity )
Head-onCollision
Crossing Angle (11 x 2 m rad.)
Electrons PositronsLERHER
1.41 MV
1.41 MV
1.44 MV
1.44 MV
Super-KEKB crab cavity scheme
2 crab cavities / beam / IP
voltage required for Super-LHC
top related