1 / 14

Thursday Summary of Working Group I

Initial questions I:. Thursday Summary of Working Group I. LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso. Oliver Brüning 1. Initial questions II:. Thursday Summary of Working Group I. LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso. Oliver Brüning 2. main points from morning session for working group I:.

jadzia
Download Presentation

Thursday Summary of Working Group I

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. Initial questions I: Thursday Summary of Working Group I LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso Oliver Brüning 1

  2. Initial questions II: Thursday Summary of Working Group I LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso Oliver Brüning 2

  3. main points from morning session for working group I: Thursday Summary of Working Group I -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 LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso Oliver Brüning 3

  4. main points from Peter McIntyre’s presentation I: Thursday Summary of Working Group I -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: LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso Oliver Brüning 4

  5. main points from Peter McIntyre’s presentation II: Thursday Summary of Working Group I • 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? LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso Oliver Brüning 5

  6. 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

  7. main points from Peter McIntyre’s presentation III: Thursday Summary of Working Group I • 2) reduce the peak heat load with an upgrade of the TAS • absorber: •  levitated dipole coil design with opening at room temperature • B = 8.7 T at 4.5 K; Ni3Sn only at inner coil NiTi otherwise • interesting magnet design for a magnetic TAS option LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso Oliver Brüning 7

  8. D1: levitated-pole dipole 8.7 T 4.5 K Cold iron pole piece, warm iron flux return. Cancel Lorentz forces on coils, pole steel.

  9. main points from Rama Calaga’s presentation: Thursday Summary of Working Group I • -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! LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso Oliver Brüning 9

  10. 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/Bcenterratio in magnets with large midplane gap may reduce operating field. The optimum design may look totally different.

  11. A True Open Midplane Design In earlier “OMD designs”, absorbers were placed between the the coils. Secondary showers from the absorberdeposited a large amount of radiation and heat load on the coils. This problem is fixed in the new design.

  12. main points from Frank Zimmermann’s presentation I: Thursday Summary of Working Group I -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?) LHC LUMI 2005; 2.9.2005; Arcidosso Oliver Brüning 12

  13. Super-KEKB crab cavity scheme 2 crab cavities / beam / IP

  14. voltage required for Super-LHC

More Related