Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
ECFA/BENE Future Neutrino Beam studies
Towards a comparison of options on equal footingDefining the next steps
Aim of this presentation is to trigger discussion
The ECFA/BENE Working groups (several 100 authors since 1998) recently published‘ECFA/CERN studies of a European Neutrino Factory Complex' CERN 2004-002 ECFA/04/230
and Physics with a MMW proton driver (MMW workshop)
+The beta beam working group
beta-beam and high power target studies within EURISOL DESIGN STUDY(Lindroos + Lettry)
http://muonstoragerings.cern.chor bene.cern.ch
Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
ENG/BENE Agenda 16th March 2005 Meeting of the Target and Collector Section, JRJ. Bennett 09.30 [talk] Non Cylindrical Symmetric Shocks in Liquid Jets J. Lettry & E.
Robert 09.45 [talk] Proton Induced Thermal Stress Wave Measurements in Solid
targets R. Wilfinger
10.00 [talk] Status of the TT2A experiment A. Fabich10.30 ---Coffee---11.00 [talk] Pion Yields from Mars Calculations S. Brooks11.30 [talk] The New UK Programme of Shock Measurements in Solids R.
Bennett 12.00 [talk] LS-DYNA and ANSYS Calculations of Shock in Solids G.
Skoro12.30 Close
Afternoon session 1:30 PM 4:30 PM (PS auditorium) H. Haseroth, R. Edgecock
1. [talk] Parameters of 2nd SPL feasibility study A. Lombardi2. [talk] MMW target development for EURISOL and EUROTRANS Y. Kadi3. [talk] Lifetime test of a MMW solid target R. Bennett
---Coffee--- 4. [talk] Frontend optimisation S. Brooks 5. [talk] Simulations of FFAG rings F. Meot/F. Lemuet 4:45 PM BetaBeam (PS auditorium)6. [talk] EURISOL and the Beta-Beam Tasks: Status and Planning M.
Lindroos 7. [talk] The decay ring A. Chance
Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
MUFRONT MUEND session 9:00-11:00, F. Méot
1. [talk] Insertions for muon FFAG rings G. Rees
2. [talk] FFAG e-model, lattice studies, beam dynamics E. Keil
3. [talk] Beam transmission in isochronous FFAG lattices F. Lemuet/F. Méot
4. Plans for future studies All participants
MICE session 11:30-14:30 / K. Long
1. [talk] MICE beam line and experiment status P. Drumm[talk] Simulations of MICE R. Sandstroem[talk] Particle by particle emittance measurement to high precision C. Rogers[talk] MICE cooling channel: can we predict cooling to 10-3? E. Gschwendtner
Proton Driver session 14:30-18:00, C. Cavata
1. [talk] P driver activities at CERN R. Garoby
2. [talk] P driver activities at Saclay C. Cavata
3. [talk] P driver activities at RAL C. Prior
4. [talk] P driver activities in Italy A. Pisent
5. [talk] Proton driver for ADS applications J. L. Biarrotte
6. identify answers (and dates) to be given during 2005
Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
● Future neutrino facilities offer great promise for fundamental discoveries (such as CP violation) in neutrino physics, and a post-LHC construction window may exist for a facility to be sited at CERN.
● CERN should arrange a budget and personnel to enhance its participation in further developing the physics case and the technologies necessary for the realization of such facilities. This would allow CERN to play a significant role in such projects wherever they are sited.
● A high-power proton driver is a main building block of future projects, and is therefore required.
● A direct superbeam from a 2.2 GeV SPL alone does not appear to be the most attractive option for a future CERN neutrino experiment as it does not produce a significant advance on T2K.
● We welcome the effort, partly funded by the EU, concerned with the conceptual design of a β-beam. At the same time CERN should support the European neutrino factory initiative in its conceptual design.
SPSC Recommendations (p.63)
Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
Implications of SPSC Villars’s recommendations for the AB department are being sent to the Research Board
Special INTC meeting (Villars – Oct. 2005) new set of recommendations (nuclear physics community)
Creation of an accelerator team to elaborate scenarios
Accelerator studies in the frame of:CARE [EU supported Integrated Activity: “Coordinated Accelerator
Research in Europe” including networks (BENE: “Beams for European Neutrino Experiments”, H3: “High energy, High intensity, High brightness” accelerators) and the Joint Research Activity HIPPI: “High Intensity Pulsed Proton Injectors”]
LHC upgrade studiesEURISOL Design Study [EU supported]
Future of proton accelerators at CERN
LHC will operate until ~ 2020
Consolidation + LHC upgrade
LHC will always be a part-time user of the injector complex
Other physics programmes can be covered if they are compatible with LHC needs. On top of value for science, synergy will be an important parameter.
Garoby, 17 March 2005
Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
HIP WG: long term alternatives
Present accelerator
Replacement accelerator
Improvement
INTEREST FOR
LHC upgrade
physics beyond CNGS
RIB beyond ISOLDE
Physics with k and
Linac2 Linac450 160 MeVH+ H- + 0 (if alone) 0 (if alone) 0 (if alone)
PSB
2.2 GeV RCS* for HEP
1.4 2.2 GeV10 250 kW
+ 0 (if alone) + 0 (if alone)
2.2 GeV/mMW RCS*1.4 2.2 GeV0.01 4 MW
+++
(super-beam, -beam ?, factory)
+(too short beam
pulse)0 (if alone)
2.2 GeV/50 HzSPL*
1.4 2.2 GeV0.01 4 MW
++++
(super-beam, -beam, factory)
+++ 0 (if alone)
PS
SC PS*/** for HEP26 50 GeVIntensity x 2
++ 0 (if alone) 0 +
5 Hz RCS*/**26 50 GeV0.1 4 MW
++ ++( factory)
0 +++
SPS 1 TeV SC SPS*/**0.45 1 TeVIntensity x2
+++ ? 0 +++
* with brightness x2 ** need new injector(s)
This table will be reviewedby PAF group (Garoby et al) (Proton Accelerator for the Future)and physics by PoFPA (J. Ellis et al) (Physics of PAF) group
Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
Cut Yield of + and −
Normalised to unit beam power (p.GeV)
3GeV
4G
eV
5G
eV
8GeV
10G
eV
20G
eV
40G
eV
50G
eV
75G
eV
100G
eV
12
0GeV
15G
eV
2.2G
eV
6GeV
30G
eV
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
1 10 100 1000
Proton Energy (GeV)
Pio
ns
per
Pro
ton
.GeV
(w
ith
in 4
5°,
pt<
250M
eV/c
)
pi+/(p.GeV)
pi-/(p.GeV)
High energy yield now appears a factor of 2 over low energy, but how much of that kink is real?
S. Brooks
Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
Stage 1: 3 MeV test place development and test of linac
equipment, beam characterization
Stage 2: Linac4 New linac replacing the present
injector of the PS Booster (Linac2) Front-end of the future SPL improvement of the beams for
physics (higher performance and easier operation for LHC, ISOLDE etc.)
Stage 3: SPL New injector for the PS, replacing the PS Booster New physics experiments using a high proton flux
improvement of the beams for physics and possibility of new experiments
3-stage approach
happening now
Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
CDR2
•expected by the end of 2005
•cointaining a feasibility study for a 3.5 GeV Superconducting H- LINAC based on 700 MHz cavities
•results of the evolution of CDR1 with
•contribution from CEA-Saclay, INFN Milano, HIPPI, ISTC ....
Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
H- ECR ion source
HV pulsed power supplies for the LEP klystrons
Chopper structure
Bunching cavities
IPHI RFQ
Beam Shapeand
Halo Monitor
H- beam
HV switch unit
Pulser
Computer
X-axis translatorWater cooler x2 channels
H- ECR ion source
HV pulsed power supplies for the LEP klystrons
Chopper structure
Bunching cavities
IPHI RFQ
Beam Shapeand
Halo Monitor
H- beam
HV switch unit
Pulser
Computer
X-axis translatorWater cooler x2 channels
Beam Shapeand
Halo Monitor
H- beam
HV switch unit
Pulser
Computer
X-axis translatorWater cooler x2 channels
H- beam
HV switch unit
Pulser
Computer
X-axis translatorWater cooler x2 channels
In construction. To be operational in 2007.
(RFQ from France,3 MeV chopping line from CERN).
The 3 MeV test stand will become the front-end of Linac4 and SPL
Stage 1: 3 MeV test place
Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
gradients at 700 MHz
Last test performed in CryHoLab (July 04):5-cells 700 MHz ß=0.65 Nb cavity A5-01from CEA/Saclay and IPN-Orsay
1E+08
1E+09
1E+10
1E+11
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Eacc ( MV/m )
Q0
Vertical Cryostat (Fast Cooling)
Horizontal Test in CryHoLab (B1)
quench
from Stephane Chel, HIPPI04, Frankfurt, sep04
Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
3 MeV test place ready
Linac4 approval
SPL approval
RF tests in SM 18 of prototype structures*
for Linac4
CDR 2
Global planning
Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
Thermal Management: Liquid Target with window
F. G
roes
chel
et a
l. (P
SI)
MEGAPIE Project at PSI
0.59 GeV proton beam
1 MW beam power Goals: Demonstrate
feasablility One year service life Irradiation in 2005
Proton Beam
KADI
Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
Radiation Management
this has been in operation for several years.
Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
P4 – CERN
P18 – PSI Switzerland
P19 – IPUL Latvia
C5 – ORNL USA
Participants Contributor
EURISOL – Multi-MW Target
Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
0
4
8
12
16
CERN PSI IPUL
Sta
ff F
TE
Available
Req. Contr.
EU-funding 828 kEuros
CERN
PSI
IPUL
HR
MaterialTravel
EURISOL – Multi-MW Target
Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
Preparation of design study ICL May 2005accelerator Alain Blondel
The CERN Neutrino Factory and Superbeam baseline scenario
1. proton source= either (some version of) SPL (baseline) or RCS
advantages of SPL = better potential to increase powerdisadvantage = need additional accumulator (SB) and compressor (NF) to keep short (3 s or 3 ns ) bunches time structure = 144 bunches at 50Hz operation cost?
2. collector = horn (baseline) or 20T solenoid horn is cheap and disposable. Efficient for single sign, but one sign only. synergy with Superbeam. 50Hz operation is hard
3. RF phase rotation at 88 MHz. Allowed one bunch of muons per bunch of protons. Muon-collider compatible! can this do both signs?
4. there never was an end-to-end simulation, performance was evaluated with interfaces.
in general was very similar to PJK scenario