1 / 10

Known evidence:

Known evidence: E-cloud instability is one of the main single bunch intensity limitations in the SPS for the LHC beam. How would the electron cloud instability threshold change if the injection energy into the SPS was raised to 50-70 GeV/c ? Answer to this question is not clear :

cyma
Download Presentation

Known evidence:

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. Known evidence: E-cloud instability is one of the main single bunch intensity limitations in the SPS for the LHC beam. • How would the electron cloud instability threshold change if the injection energy into the SPS was raised to 50-70 GeV/c ? • Answer to this question is not clear : • Higher energy means more rigid, and therefore more stable, beam • At higher energy the beam gets transversely smaller, which enhances the pinch of the electrons as the bunch goes through them • The matched voltage is lower at higher energy, which translates into a lower synchrotron tune (destabilizing) • HEADTAIL simulations neeeded to answer the question!

  2. Model with uniform E-cloud- full overview on the parameters - • The bunch is always assumed to be matched to ist bucket • Simulations are done in dipole field regions because the electron cloud is mainly located in the SPS dipoles.

  3. Main implications of the assumptions • Longitudinal emittance 0.35 eVs and rms bunch length 0.3 m: • Matched voltage scales like ||/ and is re-adjusted for the simulations at different energies • Normalised transverse emittances: ~3.0 m implies that transverse beam sizes scale like g -1/2

  4. Model with uniform E-cloud Overview on the instability thresholds • Instability thresholds as: • Bunch intensity when the e-cloud density is fixed  decreases with energy!

  5. Model with self-consistent e-cloud HEADTAIL simulations E-cloud build up threshold 1/g • For dmax=1.4 the instability threshold decreases like 1/g till it levels off at the value of the build up threshold • For momenta > ~100 GeV/c, e-cloud build up and instability thresholds become equal.

  6. Experiment at the SPS was attempted last year (24 October 2006) to verify this scaling law: • Chromaticity correction on the ramp to see whether it would make the beam (4 batches) unstable • Chromaticity correction and 200 MHz voltage ramp down to 500 kV to observe beam stability at flat top (450 GeV/c) • No instability was observed • HEADTAIL simulations also show no expected instability with the high voltage used along the ramp and the blown up longitudinal emittance at 450 GeV/c. • More measurements are planned this year at the SPS, trying to set up a magnetic cycle with an intermediate flat top at energy that could be between 50 and 70 GeV/c. We could attempt to study the ECI threshold having chromaticity corrected and matched bunch at this intermediate energy (to reproduce the conditions of the simulations).

  7. Benchmark with Ohmi‘s code PEHTS is also ongoing to establish the correctness of the HEADTAIL prediction • Where we are standing: • The bunch at 270 GeV/c is more unstable than the bunch at 40 GeV/c • Thresholds estimated from the figures: • 40 GeV/c  7 x 1011 • 270 GeV  2 x 1011 • HEADTAIL predicts thresholds about a factor 10 lower. We are verifying possible mistypings, parameters and model.

  8. Countermeasures (I): Reducing the chamber size... The table shows the average electron cloud central density (m-3) for nominal beam current (1.1 x 1011) at 50 or 70 GeV/c  The beam is unstable in all the cases with electron cloud! (threshold is about 1.5 x 1012 m-3) dmax size

  9. Countermeasures (II): Reducing the dmax or acting on beam parameters • If dmax <1.3 there is no electron cloud and therefore, no instability for the nominal LHC beam (even keeping the present pipe size!) • Efficient scrubbing, NEG (or different kind of) coating on surfaces • Grooved surfaces seem to reduce the SEY (example, courtesy W. Bruns) • Perhaps injecting into the SPS with a higher longitudinal emittance?

  10. Summary • E-cloud single bunch instability in the vertical plane is presently an intensity limitation in the SPS • The scaling of ECI thresholds with energy, as predicted by HEADTAIL simulations, is not favorable under conservation of longitudinal emittance and normalized transverse emittances • This can be overcome by • suppressing the e-cloud (smaller chamber radii, NEG or grooved surfaces) • injecting into the SPS with larger ez • Verification of the scaling law: done, ongoing or planned. • Benchmark with experiments (attempted once in the SPS in October 2006, but no effect observed due to the high voltage during ramp, more MDs planned for this year) • Benchmark with another ECI code (PEHTS, K. Ohmi, KEK) • Look for mode coupling when crossing the ECI threshold

More Related