1 / 29

“two beam” impedances

“two beam” impedances. Frank Zimmermann AP Forum, 28 September 2012. outline. motivation - 2012 LHC observations h istorical studies r esistive wall 2-beam impedance - review of work from 2006 o pen questions TCT – Alexej Grudiev Y chamber - Bruno Spataro.

chen
Download Presentation

“two beam” impedances

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. “two beam” impedances Frank Zimmermann AP Forum, 28 September 2012

  2. outline • motivation • - 2012 LHC observations • historical studies • resistive wall 2-beam impedance • - review of work from 2006 • open questions • TCT – Alexej Grudiev • Y chamber - Bruno Spataro

  3. single-beam instability threshold 4 TeV • decreasing octupoles' current from ~ 450 A to 97 A (on flat-top before the squeeze)  beam dump due to losses • estimated Q’ + 5 units Elias Metral, Alexey Burov, Nicholas Mounet, Giulia Papotti consistent with impedance model from summary of MD block #2

  4. single beaminstability data from MD block no 2. After squeeze: Q'x,y= + 5, ADT as in physics: decreased octupolecurrent down to 0; at 0 the beam became unstable in Vplane(still stable at ~ 20 A in the D octupoles). Increased octupolesto save beam (also Q'x,y+2). Ioct= 450 A, ADT as in physics: decreased Q'x,y from + 7 to - 10 by steps of 1 unit. The beam was always stable. Then we moved in 1 step to Q'x,y = + 10 and the beam was still stable. Q'x,y= - 5, ADT as in physics: decreased the octupole current down to ~ 220 A , when the beam became unstable in Vplane. Just after the instability, increased again the octupole current to save beam. Q'x,y= + 2, ADT as in physics: we decreased the octupole current down to ~60 A,when the beam became unstable in Hplane. Just after the instability, increased again octupolecurrent to save beam. Q'x,y= + 2, Ioct = 450 A: decreased the ADT gain by steps of 20% and after having reached the limit of the lower value, switched ADT off. The beam was stable. BBQ signal in H increased ~ linearly ~ 3 times above the noise level. Q'x,y= + 2, ADT switched off: decreased the octupole current by 1 step to ~ 400 A and the beam was unstable in Vplaneand finally dumped. A. Burov, M. Pojer, Y., G. Trad, Y. Le Borgne, T. Pieloni, E. Metral from summary of MD block #2

  5. 2-beam machine settings (ramp) until August • tunes: 0.28 (H)/0.31(V) constant • chromaticity: close to 0 (+1-2 units) to minimize growth rate of higher order head-tail modes and possible lifetime problems observed at Tevatron with high (~20 units) chromaticity. • octupoles: increasing at the end of the ramp when collimators are closing (~5.3 sigmas for e*=2.5 mm at the TCPs). ~450 A at 4 TeV(negative for ROF/positive for ROD) to damp higher order head-tail modes. Polarity to maximize damping for given current. Current scaled from 2011 experience taking into account increased impedance of the collimators (cfr. E. Métral). ROF.B1 ROF.B2 Energy Observations on instabilities- G. Arduini, LMC #145

  6. 2-beam stability level investigations on the ramp Observed instabilities for nominal chromaticity - had to increase it Based on these observations inverted octupole polarity with 417 A and chromaticity of 5 Observations on instabilities - G. Arduini, LMC #145

  7. octupolereverse polarity – 2 beams • Transverse feedback unchanged (factor 2 to 4 below maximum) all through flat-top and squeeze • Instability developing at high energy (flat-top and squeeze) H and V • Always cured by increasing chromaticity • No instability observed during adjust. Observations on instabilities - G. Arduini, LMC#145

  8. LHC observations in a nutshell with old octupole polarity single beam was stable with Ioct=100 A (before squeeze) or 20 A (after squeeze) two-beam stability required Ioct>300 A

  9. two-beam cross talk around the four interaction regions, the two LHC beams share a common beam pipe, including a number of tertiary collimators protecting the low-beta quadrupoles against beam loss here the resistive-wall wake fields induced by one of the two beams can excite oscillations in the other beam wake fields acting between bunches propagating in opposite direction could be important whenever two colliding beams pass through a common region of beam pipe (not only for the LHC but for all storage-ring colliders or even for the interaction regions of linear colliders)

  10. coupling via resonator wake fields instabilities involving the coupling of two counter-propagating oppositely charged beams via resonator wake fields discussed in: [1] A. Renieri and C.Pellegrini, Longitudinal Instabilities of the Dipole Oscillation Modes for Two Beams Many Bunches Storage Ring, Report Adone T-64, LaboratoriNazionali di Frascati (1974). [2] C.Pellegrini, Longitudinal Coupled Bunch Instability for Two Counter Rotating Beams, CERN-LEP/TH/86-17 (1986) [3] J.M.Wang, Transverse Two Beam Instability, CERN-LEP/TH/87-65 (1987) [9] T.-S. Wang, Coherent Synchro-Betatron Effects in Counter-Rotating Beams, CERN/SL/90-09 (AP) (1990)

  11. J.M. Wang 1987

  12. J.M. Wang 1987 model I - without frequency spread → narrow band high-Q resonance could explain difference between LHC 1 & 2-beam stability

  13. two-beam resistive-wall impedance an activity in the former CERN AB-ABP-RLC section literature search for 2-beam wake fields, action of 18.11.2005; assigned to Elias Metral, Frank Zimmermann; high priority; COMPLETED on 16.12.2005 develop theory for 2-beam resistive-wall wake field, action of 17.02.2006, assigned to Frank Zimmermann; high priority; DONE on 03.03.2006 (presentation at RLC section meeting) poster & paper “Two beam resistive wall wake field”, by F. Zimmermann, at PAC07, Albuquerque , Proc. P. 4237; LHC-Project-Report -1021

  14. acknowledgements I am grateful to the late Francesco Ruggiero (1957-2007) for encouraging this study.The PAC07 article was dedicated to him. I also thank Karl Bane and Katsunobu Oide for helpful discussions about wake-field calculations in the complex plane and the Panofsky-Wenzel theorem. Elias Metral & Bruno Zotter kindly provided references [2] & [3]. Boris Podobedovhas later sent me some interesting questions.

  15. coupling via resistive wall Case of resistive-wall impedance differs from resonator case. Longitudinal electric field excited by a bunch moving in the opposite direction changes sign with respect to that of a bunch moving in the same direction. At larger distances the field excited by the other bunch becomes decelerating. The total wake-field effect on a “probe” particle (bunch) must be obtained by integrating over the distance z from the ``driving'' particle (or “driving” bunch) in the opposite beam, instead of considering a constant value of z as is common for single-beam wake-field calculations. As a consequence of the change in sign for the longitudinal electric field, the coupled-beam longitudinal resistive-wall impedance also changes sign. Transverse resistive-wall wake field acting between counter-propagating beams or particles has electric & magnetic components. The transverse electric force stays the same as for the conventional single-beam wake field, but magnetic Lorentz force inverts its sign.

  16. I drop r2 term (“sextupolar” wake) not necessarily good assumption for LHC collimators!

  17. standard resistive wall - references [4] A.W. Chao, Physics of Collective Instabilities in High Energy Accelerators, John Wiley, 1993. [5] P.L. Morton, V.K.Neil, A.M. Sessler, “Wake Fields of a Pulse of Charge Moving in a Highly Conducting Pipe of Circular Cross Section,” J.Appl.Phys.37, 10, 3875-3883, 1966. [6] K.L.F. Bane, M. Sands, “The Short-Range Resistive-Wall Wake Fields,” AIP Conf. Proc. 367: 131-149, 1996. [7] W.K.H. Panofsky, W.A. Wenzel, “Some Considerations Concerning the Transverse Deflection of Charged Particles in Radio-Frequency Fields,” Rev.Sci.Instrum. 27, 967 (1956). [8] K. Oide, private communication (2007).

  18. first last

  19. Complex w plane and the two k-plane Riemann sheets with branch cuts corresponding to the complex function w=k1/2, and pole of the function k1/2/(k1/2+(1+i)/(2bX)).

  20. Parentheses ( • Approach follows Bane and Sands’ treatment for the single beam wake field [SLAC-Pub-95-7064]: • )

  21. discussion The equality of the transverse single-beam and two-beam wake fields, except for the sign, can be attributed to the Panofsky-Wenzel theorem [7], which relates the transverse and longitudinal wake fields as and which should hold for any force that can be derived from a Hamiltonian [8]. For a single beam the total net wake effect is obtained by multiplying the wake field with the length L of the resistive beam pipe considered, where z refers to the distance e.g. between the source bunch and a later bunch moving in the same direction, which does not change. In the case of the two-beam wake field, we must integrate with respect to z, and compute expressions of the form

  22. Total net force acting during the passage of two bunches moving in opposite direction = resistive-wall component and + direct long-range beam-beam force. Consider the situation that two proton beams are offset from the center of a round vacuum chamber, by ±a, so that the beams are transversely separated by 2a. The total beam-beam deflection experienced by a proton at the center of one beam after passing a bunch of the second beam and then traversing a common circular vacuum chamber of conductivity s and length L, equals where Nbdenotes the number of protons per bunch, and e is the elementary charge. The second term represents the long-range beam-beam force in free space. The positive sign of the two-beam Green function wake field indicates that the wake force points towards the center of the chamber, i.e. the two-beam wake tends to counteract the direct long-range beam-beam force.

  23. Examples for parameters typical of the LHC inner triplet – b~30mm, L~50 m, b/a~5 –, force cancellation for s~4x1010 s-1, about seven orders of magnitudesmaller than the conductivity of copper or aluminum with approximate parameters for an LHC two-beam tertiary tungsten collimator, –b~1.5 mm, b/a~5,and L~1 m –, the force cancellation occurs for s~4x 1011s-1, which is still six orders of magnitude below the conductivity of tungsten

  24. Conclusions (2006) We have derived the transverse two-beam resistive-wall wake function describing the coupling of two beams moving in opposite direction via the impedance of a round resistive vacuum chamber. The Green function wake field equals that of a single beam, but it has the opposite sign. The modification of the long-range beam-beam deflection by the resistive-wall wake field is small for typical LHC parameters. Larger effects would arise either for smaller beam pipes or for chamber walls of higher resistivity.

  25. 16.07.2009 questions from Boris Podobedov (2009) concerning res.-wall wakefieldsfor a possible small proton ring at BNL with counter-propagating beams sharing the same small-aperture chamber - two questions: “ 1) How to estimate the multi-turn two-beam wakefield kick? For the standard co-propagating beam situation I would just sum contributions from all turns until the field diffuses through the thickness of the vacuum chamber. Of course, at each subsequent turn the transverse wake would be sqrt(z/(z+C)) smaller. Is this approach directly transferable to the two-beam wakefield? 2) A possibly related question is as follows. Now I go back to the single-turn wake, and I am still in the long-range regime |z|>>\kappa^{1/3}b. What happens if there are two identical resistive elements in the ring instead of one? Is the total two-beam resistive wall kick a factor of 2 or a factor of sqrt(2) times larger than if there was just one element? In other words, could resistive pieces be considered independent as long as they are somewhat apart?”

  26. comment diverging for large L

  27. possible further work on two-beam resistive-wall wake field • multiturn wake? (Boris I) • additivity? (Boris II) • sextupolar wake component • drop assumption |l|>>1/b

More Related