1 / 48

More beam (muons) from the AGS

More beam (muons) from the AGS. AGS RHIC Users Group Meeting EDM Workshop Brookhaven National Laboratory 7 June 2006 Phil Pile. More beam from the AGS. Outline. AGS Issues V1 Beam Line – present limitations V1 Beam Line – possible improvements To Do. The experts. BNL

rigg
Download Presentation

More beam (muons) from the AGS

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. More beam (muons) from the AGS AGS RHIC Users Group Meeting EDM Workshop Brookhaven National Laboratory 7 June 2006 Phil Pile

  2. More beam from the AGS Outline • AGS Issues • V1 Beam Line – present limitations • V1 Beam Line – possible improvements • To Do

  3. The experts BNL • Hugh Brown – V1 p/m Beam Line Design University of Illinois • Peter Kammel • Paul Debevec • Sara Knaack They began studies over two years ago on how to improve Hugh Brown’s V1 beam line design.

  4. g-2 short history • E821 (as run) Year Weeks HoursIntegrated ProtonsRemarks 1996 8 196 - pulse-on-demand 1997 8 pulse-on-demand 4 546 0.13 x 1020 1st physics run 1998 2 pulse-on-demand 4 254 0.08 x 1020 1999 2 pulse-on-demand 9 924 0.4 x 1020 2000 12 1312 0.5 x 1020 2001 12 793 0.6 x 1020 TOTALS 63 4025 1.7 x 1020 • E969 (my estimate) 2010 10 960 - Commissioning 2011 21 1920 1.3 x 102 15 weeks with RHIC on • AGS Total integrated protons (SEB+FEB), 1993-2002 = 6.5 x 1020

  5. AGS performance T. Roser PROTON BEAM FY96 FY97 FY98/99 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 SEB SEB FEB (g-2) SEB FEB (g-2) FEB (g-2) FEB (g-2) SEB Beam Energy 24 GeV 24 GeV 24 GeV 24 GeV 24 GeV 24 GeV 24 GeV* 22 GeV* Peak Beam Intensity 62 x 1012 ppp 62 x 1012 ppp 46 x 1012 ppp 72 x 1012 ppp 58 x 1012 ppp 61 x 1012 ppp 63 x 1012 ppp 76 x 1012 ppp Total protons accelerated 0.9 x 1020 0.4 x 1020 0.1 x 1020 0.9 x 1020 0.4 x 1020 0.5 x 1020 0.6 x 1020 0.7 x 1020 Spill Length/Cycle Time 1.6 sec/3.6 sec 1.6 sec/3.6 sec 2.8 sec/5.1 sec 2.4 sec/5.4 sec -> Duty Cycle 44% 44% 55%44% Spill Structure Modulation (peak-average) /average 20% 20% 20% 20% Average Availability /Best Week 76% / 92% 71% / 79% 58 % / 67 % 71% / 88% 55 % / 83 % 74 % / 87 % 83 % / 88 % 85 % / 97 % HEAVY ION BEAM Au Au Fe (NASA) Au Fe (NASA) Fe (NASA) Fe (NASA) Fe (NASA) Beam Energy /nucleon 11 / 4 / 2 GeV 11 / 8 / 6 GeV 1.0 / 0.6 GeV 11 GeV 1.0 / 0.6 GeV 1.0 GeV 1.0 GeV 1.0 GeV Peak Beam Intensity 4 x 108 Au/p 17 x 108 Au/p 20 x 108 Fe/p 9 x 108 Au/bunch 36 x 108 Fe/p 17 x 108 Fe/p 80 x 108 Fe/p 49 x 108 Fe/p Spill Length/Cycle Time 1.4 sec/3.6 sec 1.5 sec/4.0 sec 1.2 sec/3.0 sec 0.9 sec/3.3 sec 0.9 sec/3.3 sec 0.9 sec/3.3 sec -> Duty Cycle 39% 38% 40 % 27% 27% 27% Spill Structure Modulation (peak-average) /average <20% <20% <20% <20% <20% <20% Average Availability 80% 82 % 96 % 81 % 90 % 90 % 97 % 84 % * Westinghouse Motor Generator

  6. AGS/RHIC Accelerator Complex p gas jet target PHENIX (p) STAR (p) 12:00 o’clock BRAHMS PHOBOS 2:00 o’clock 10:00 o’clock RHIC 8:00 o’clock 4:00 o’clock 6:00 o’clock • AGS: • Intensity: 7  1013 protons/pulse • Injector to RHIC: • < 1 hour about every 4 hours Fast extraction U-line High Intensity Source m g-2 NSRL (NASA) LINAC Pol. Proton Source AGS BOOSTER Slow extraction TANDEMS

  7. AGS Complex m g-2 experiment to RHIC NSRL V1 p/m Beam Line Linac Booster AGS AGS and Booster need a re-hab before returning to high intensity TTB C-AD Admin

  8. E821 beam line and muon storage ring 3.094 GeV/c muon channel, 8 quads Inflector 3.15 GeV/c pion front end

  9. See http://www.npl.uiuc.edu:8081/ for more Beam Studies Summary March 16 ‘06 What I’ll discuss today differences Petersightly different tunes fit of XX’ sigma (Dave) optimized injection mag in q tune forward -8% due to finite target Forward: + 3% looks promising. Factor 2.4 over E821. Main uncertainties: model/reality difference in Pp scaling (factor 2), pion flash prediction, phase space effect. Can largely be verified in beam test run. Investigate K1/K2 improvement. Backward: Factor 1.75 over E821 with effort. Gets hit twice by 2nd order effects (intensity and phase space losses). Needs to overcome those to remain competitive. Main uncertainties: New injection beam line and 2nd order effects. Higher cost and effort. Can only be partially verified in beam test run. (Peter Kammel Slide)

  10. IMPROVED E821 Beam Line E969 beam line and muon storage ring • decay channel (3 GeV/c m’s) Add 30 new 4Q24’s New VQ12 New Inflector

  11. So how do we get more muons? The basic approach - Reduce beta function in decay channel (add quads) and get more muons into storage ring with no increase in pions. Some Issues: • Pion flash • First order beam blow-up due to extended target • 2nd order beam blow-up • Inflector/Ring admittance • Muon Polarization

  12. 16 12 8 4 0 4 8 12 cm or cm/% The E821 beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam FIRST ORDER CALCULATION and target 0cm d/s dy/dp (cm/%) P2 P1 y (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 meters x (cm) dx/dp (cm/%) 1. 0.2616 17.0 0.1880 60.0 8.776 1.0 3.1523 /pion/ ;

  13. The E821 w/4X FODO beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam FIRST ORDER CALCULATION and target 0cm d/s 16 12 8 4 0 4 8 12 cm or cm/% dy/dp (cm/%) P1 P2 y (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 meters x (cm) dx/dp (cm/%) 1. 0.2616 15.0 0.1880 80.0 8.776 1.0 3.1513 /pion/ ;

  14. The E821 beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam SECOND ORDER CALCULATION and target 0 cm d/s 16 12 8 4 0 4 8 12 cm or cm/% dy/dp (cm/%) P2 P1 y (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 meters x (cm) dx/dp (cm/%) 1. 0.2616 17.0 0.1880 60.0 8.776 1.0 3.1523 /pion/ ;

  15. The E821 w/4X FODO beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam SECOND ORDER CALCULATION and target 0cm d/s 16 12 8 4 0 4 8 12 cm or cm/% dy/dp (cm/%) y (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 meters x (cm) dx/dp (cm/%) 1. 0.2616 15.0 0.1880 80.0 8.776 1.0 3.1513 /pion/ ;

  16. The E821 beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam FIRST ORDER CALCULATION and target 9 cm d/s 16 12 8 4 0 4 8 12 cm or cm/% dy/dp (cm/%) y (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 meters x (cm) dx/dp (cm/%) 1. 0.2616 17.0 0.1880 60.0 8.776 1.0 3.1523 /pion/ ;

  17. The E821 w/4X FODO beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam FIRST ORDER CALCULATION and target 9cm d/s 16 12 8 4 0 4 8 12 cm or cm/% dy/dp (cm/%) y (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 meters x (cm) dx/dp (cm/%) 1. 0.2616 15.0 0.1880 80.0 8.776 1.0 3.1513 /pion/ ;

  18. The E821 beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam SECOND ORDER CALCULATION and target 9 cm d/s 16 12 8 4 0 4 8 12 cm or cm/% dy/dp (cm/%) y (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 meters x (cm) dx/dp (cm/%) 1. 0.2616 17.0 0.1880 60.0 8.776 1.0 3.1523 /pion/ ;

  19. The E821 w/4X FODO beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam SECOND ORDER CALCULATION and target 9cm d/s 16 12 8 4 0 4 8 12 cm or cm/% dy/dp (cm/%) y (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 meters x (cm) dx/dp (cm/%) 1. 0.2616 15.0 0.1880 80.0 8.776 1.0 3.1513 /pion/ ;

  20. The E821 beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam SECOND ORDER CALCULATION and target 9 cm u/s 16 12 8 4 0 4 8 12 cm or cm/% dy/dp (cm/%) y (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 meters x (cm) dx/dp (cm/%) 1. 0.2616 17.0 0.1880 60.0 8.776 1.0 3.1523 /pion/ ;

  21. The E821 w/4X FODO beam line (1 % dp/p), 3.15 GeV/c pion beam SECOND ORDER CALCULATION and target 9cm u/s 16 12 8 4 0 4 8 12 cm or cm/% dy/dp (cm/%) y (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 meters x (cm) dx/dp (cm/%) 1. 0.2616 15.0 0.1880 80.0 8.776 1.0 3.1513 /pion/ ;

  22. The target length issue

  23. Pion Flash and polarization issues – study with 3.15 GeV/c ± 90% pion momentum Muon momentum (GeV/c) 4X FODO to u/s of P2 (end of decay channel) Primodial muons Muon Polarization 3.094 GeV/c ± 0.25%

  24. The Pion Flash Issue 3.094 GeV/c ± 0.25% Note rapid loss vs gradual loss of muons 4X 1X

  25. The Pion Flash Issue 3.094 GeV/c ± 0.25%

  26. The pion flash issue together with polarization loss and admittance issues 3.094 GeV/c ± 0.25%

  27. The pion flash issue together with polarization loss and admittance issues E821 muon momentum range Takes into account admittance and polarization Takes into account admittance

  28. Comparing Present (1X) to Proposed (4X) Beam Lineincludes muon admittance and p2 factor for polarizationBottom Line -EXPECTED IMPROVEMENT Better p rejection more m stored E821 muon momentum range

  29. Summary of Beam Line Changes V Primary Transport • New VQ12 – to reduce primary beam losses V1 pion production target • Unchanged V1 p/m Beam Line • Reposition V1P1 upstream (more m’s collected) • Add 30 New 4Q24 magnets in p decay channel • Add earth shielding over V1 transport tunnel • Improve shielding between beam line and storage ring • New Inflector (open end)

  30. g-2 p/m beam line front end VQ12 replaced with 4” dia quad

  31. No Changes

  32. Move V1P1 upstream (longer decay channel) Shielding mods

  33. Add 30 quads to pion decay channel, collect more muons

  34. Improve shielding New open-end inflector Less multiple scattering, more muons stored

  35. To Do List • Complete simulations to include transport to K3K4 and inflector for both the present beam line and the proposed beam line, done but with little thought and is not optimized. • Include 19 cm length in simulation • Can we reconcile differences between beam line measurements and simulations • Are 30 quads (4X) in decay channel optimum? There’s room for more but pole tip field becomes a problem…

  36. Supplementary Information

  37. 1.0 g-2 Ring/Building maintenance 1 man month to engineer an air conditioning system for bldg 919 1.1 V/V1 Beam Lines 1 man-months engineering 1 man-months physicist 1.2 Inflector (see Meng talk) A quote from the Furukawa Company for superconductor 1.3 E Quads Nothing new, defendable 1.8 Kicker Nothing new, defendable 1.11 Cryogenics (to determine scope) 2 man-months engineering 1 man-month tech 1.12 Vacuum System 1 man-month engineering 1.14 Booster/AGS 0.5 man month engineering 0.5 man month physicist ES&H – review operation within present guidelines 1 man-month physicist 1 man month engineer Preparation of Cost Books, Resource Loaded Schedules, CD0-1 documents etc 4 man-months engineering 4 man--months physicist Summary 11 man-month engineering 7 man-month physicist 1 man-month tech Required Budget ~ $360K Calendar Time Required ~ 6-8 months What is needed to baseline the costs(not included in construction cost estimate)

  38. Muon g-2 Experiment Construction, Cost Summary • Experiment Construction, Direct Costs M$ Contingency • G-2 Ring and building $ 0.56 21% • V/V1 Beam Line modifications $ 2.59 18% • Inflector (open ends) $ 0.64 19% • E-Quad rebuild $ 0.13 15% • Additional muon Kicker $ 0.41 15% • Cryogenic plant rehab $ 0.74 233% • Ring Vacuum System $ 0.16 29% • Equipment Testing $ 0.63 20% • Project Office $ 0.37 20% • Sub-Total, direct costs $ 6.2 • Indirects (reduced) $ 2.2 • Contingency (44%) $ 3.7 • Sub-Total, with indirects $ 12.1 • University (Detectors/DAQ) $ 1.4 • Total (DOE) $ 13.6 • University (Detectors/DAQ - NSF) $ 1.0 FY 2006 $’s

  39. AGS/Booster Restoration to High Intensity, Cost Summary • AGS/Booster, Direct Costs M$Contingency • ES&H (CAPS) $ 2.63 28% • Electrical Modifications $ 2.11 22% • Mechanical Modifications $ 1.25 20% • RF System Modifications $ 0.67 22% • Instrumentation $ 0.34 20% • Project Support $ 0.33 34% • Controls $ 0.16 24% • Sub-Total, direct costs $ 7.5 • Indirects (reduced) $ 1.9 • Contingency (24%) $ 2.3 • Total $ 11.7 FY 2006 $’s

  40. g-2 Experiment Operations, Cost Summary FY 2006 $’s • Base Plan (0.25 ppm experiment)YearWks w/RHICWks Stand-AlonePhysics WksCost (M$) 1st 12 0 3 $ 5.8 2nd20015 $ 7.8 Total 34 0 18 $ 13.6 Additional 10-15 week year of running with RHIC adds ~$6-7M

  41. g-2 Experiment Operations, Cost Summary FY 2006 $’s DOE Costs • Baseline Costs (C-AD pre-construction) $ 0.4 • Experiment Construction (mostly C-AD) $ 12.1 • Universities $ 1.4 • AGS/Booster restoration to high intensity $ 11.7 • Operations $ 13.6 • Total $ 39.2 NSF Costs • Universities $ 1.0

  42. g-2 Experiment Operations Plan

  43. g-2 Experiment Operations (0.5 ppm) FY 2006 $’s

  44. FY 2006 $’s g-2 Experiment Operations (0.25 ppm)

  45. g-2 Experiment Operations (0.2 ppm) FY 2006 $’s

  46. LEP Quads http://www-ap.fnal.gov/~bcbrown/Sources/LEP_Quad_Info.html

More Related