Beam transfer for SBL /LAGUNA studies

1. Beam transfer for SBL/LAGUNA studies B.Goddard reporting for A.Parfenova, F.Velotti, R.Steerenberg, K.Cornelis, W.Bartmann, V.Kain, E.Carlier, A.Alekou, L.Jensen et al.

2. Overview • Extraction feasibility – studies and MD ongoing • Simulation and MD results • Beamline feasibility – studies starting • Input still required from other study groups • Open questions and discussion items

3. Extraction feasibility studies • Reminder: very difficult to integrate kickers into LSS2, so exploring alternative idea to use kickers elsewhere in SPS: • LSS2 extraction using LSS1 MKP kicker (limited to 100 GeV) • Easiest to configure and test with beam (no interlocking issues) • Simulations competed, MD tests done 17/09/12, beam extracted to TT20 • Active test program continuing • LSS2 extraction using LSS6 MKE kicker (100 and 400 GeV) • Constrained by interlocking and energy limits • Only possible to test with HiRadMat beam (440 GeV), late in 2012 • 400 GeV in theory easier than 100 GeV (beams factor 2 smaller transversely) • Simulations in progress, MDs being organised • LSS2 extraction using LSS4 MKE kicker (400 or 450 GeV) • Not being actively looked at, at the moment B.Goddard

4. Extraction feasibility studies • Other feasibility aspects being considered: • Interlocking for LSS1 MKP or LSS6 MKE • Master BICs, interlocking logic, BETS • Kicker HW upgrades needed • Controls, RCPS, PFNs, cabling, … • Kicker control updates needed • Pre-pulses, timing, charging supplies, … • Extraction region BI for fast and slow beams • Screens, BPMs, BLMs, BCTS B.Goddard

5. Results of simulations and measurements Kicker LSS1 Extraction LSS2 ~1.2 km Bump and extraction trajectories (110 GeV)

6. In extraction region Including orbit from rms 100 um MQ misalignments

7. Aperture Bumped beam Extracted beam

8. SPS MD 1: phase advance checks • Phase advance scatters within +/-15 deg around the value expected from the linear lattice (20.5 deg) • There is no tune dependence on the oscillation amplitude nor the intensity

9. SPS MD2: Layout and test scope LSS1: MKP LSS2: MST LSS2: MSE TT20 TED SPS TT20 BTV BTV

10. Supercycle composition

11. LSS2 closed orbit bump Very small leakage – no issues

12. First Extraction • Beam extracted into TT20 using calculated settings • MKP on at 52 kV for three generators • MST on at 0.5 mrad • MSE on at 1.92 mrad

13. Aperture and loss scans • Using 7 um beam, 4e11 p+, 110 GeV • Will be a lot easier for 400 GeV

14. Check with 7 um beam emittance Extraction losses (extraction time 2400 ms)

15. 7 um with 10% more kick strength No extraction losses (extraction time 2400 ms)

16. Conclusions on “non-local” extraction • The concept works...! Clean extraction achieved • The MKP a/c is enough to extract at 100-110 GeV even with εn=7.1 μm beam • MKP a/c will allow 11 us extraction flat-top, with < 1 us rise time • Losses scaled to CNGS intensity look same order of magnitude as those in LSS4...intensity effects will of course only make things worse • 100 GeV (kick 10% bigger) is more comfortable • Will need to address the SPS dump “forbidden zone” • 400 GeV would be easier, but have to use LSS6 using MKE • Rise time 6-7 us, so cannot fill SPS for two extractions

17. Beamline feasibility studies • TT20 upgrade for FE 100/400 GeV beam • Optics, aperture, powering, instrumentation, … • New beamline sections to neutrino targets • Geometry, optics, layout, instrumentation, magnets, powering, CV, access, civil engineering, transport, services, interlocks, vacuum, RP, … • Synergies with SBL and LAGUNA phases 1,2 and 3 • Upgrade of common TT20 beamline sections, standardisation of new elements, upgrade paths, compatibility, … B.Goddard

18. Beamline feasibility studies • Switching from TT20 before splitters • Another branch between SBL and LBL targets • Need to iterate on first layouts defined by John and Antoine • Will start on this next week with coordinates of targets • All constraints to be clearly define BEFOREHAND • Depth, maximum beam energy, maximum emittance, dp/p, bunch structure, loss limitations, CE constraints, ... B.Goddard

19. Branching from TT20(1) • Needs to be before splitter magnets • Optics progressively more and more screwed up • Very high radiation • Aperture limits

20. Branching from TT20 Switch magnet here ???

21. Input needed from other “study teams” • Target locations and orientations (from EA group) • XYZqF coordinates (CCS) • Needed to define first iteration of primary beamline • Beam parameters at targets (from target designers) • sxsy,axay,DxDy • Beam position jitter tolerance, required tuning range (s) • Needed for optics design • Civil engineering constraints (from civil engineering) • Junction cavern lengths, tunnel separations, depth constraints, modifications of existing structures, .. • Needed to define primary beamline layout • Beam characteristics from injectors and SPS (from OP) • Intensity, transverse emittance, dp/p • Needed for aperture definition, simulations, losses, instrumentation, .. • Estimates of required POT (from experiments) • Per year, and over facility lifetime • Needed for dose/activation/decommissioning estimates, materials choice B.Goddard

22. Open questions and discussion items Scope of synergy with SBL to be urgently clarified – SBL is not yet even an approved study, there is no mandate or timeline, and not possible to commit real resources, or request any. Potential overlap or competition for equipment/resources with AWAKE project to be clarified – this is an approved study project for a 450 GeV SPS beamline, looking at re-using CNGS beamline or components. Other potential areas of overlap are LIU (e.g. proposed upgrade of MKP kickers for ions, which may not be compatible with use as fast extraction kicker). B.Goddard