140 likes | 167 Views
Overview of the EMMA Project. Rob Edgecock for the EMMA Collaboration*. *BNL, CERN, CI, FNAL, JAI, LPSC Grenoble, STFC, TRIUMF. EMMA. Outline. Motivation for EMMA How we got to where we are today Requirements EMMA lattices Accelerator Conclusions. EMMA. Neutrino Factory. Motivation.
E N D
Overview of the EMMA Project Rob Edgecock for the EMMA Collaboration* *BNL, CERN, CI, FNAL, JAI, LPSC Grenoble, STFC, TRIUMF
EMMA Outline • Motivation for EMMA • How we got to where we are today • Requirements • EMMA lattices • Accelerator • Conclusions
EMMA Neutrino Factory Motivation • NS-FFAGs invented (Carol, Shane, Scott, etc): accel • Advantages: • linear FF magnets: large DA, small aperture, HF RF • parabolic ToF: CW (asynchronous, serpentine, etc) accel • Disadvantages: • novel longitudinal & transverse dynamics • rapid tune variations: multiple resonance crossings • Recognised early on (~2004): must build one! • Electron model was cheapest/only option EMMA • Other possible applications also identified • Following Japanese scaling FFAGs • Helpful for funding
EMMA Model Parameters • Electron model of muon FFAGs: parameters scaled muon electron • 10-20MeV • few GHz RF • ~40-50 cells (doublets, for cost), multiple of 6 • Needed: • Injector and hall – MP proposed DL & ERLP/ALICE • Funding: 2 possibilities identified in 2005 - FP6 NEST - BT fund BASROC/CONFORM
CONFORM • Created early 2006 • Submitted BT proposal in July 2006: total cost £8.2M – 80% from EPSRC £5.6M for EMMA construction (+£250k from FP7) • Started 1st April 2007 CONFORM Project leader: Roger Barlow/Man Project manager: Neil Bliss/DL EMMA Proj. leader: RE Proj. Manager: NB PAMELA Ken Peach/JAI Applications Karen Kirkby/Surrey Bob Cywinski/Leeds
EMMA EMMA Requirements • Demonstrate that non-scaling optics work • Study resonances in detail: - emittance growth vs acceleration rate - “ “ vs tune variation - “ “ vs parabola shape - effect of errors - detailed probe using injector • Study longitudinal dynamics in detail: - transmission vs parameter values - emittance growth vs parameter values - tof behaviour; effect of non-parabolic nature - effect of moving parabola - effect of errors • Check effect of transverse dynamics • Compare with predictions • ……………..
EMMA EMMA Lattices • 8 lattices (from Scott): determined machines specs • Probe: - tune diagram - ToF - full transverse aperture – 3πmmrad
EMMA EMMA Parameters • 10-20MeV electrons • Full aperture injection and extraction at any energy • Aperture probed with small emittance beam • 42 doublet cells – di and quad B-fields ind variable • RF: 1.3GHz - variable frequency, gain, phase • Bunch charge – 16-32pC • Cell lengths - total length: 394.481mm - long drift: 210.000mm - F: 58.782mm - short drift: 50.000mm - D: 75.699mm • Circumference – 16.57m • Lots of diagnostics – must measure everything!
EMMA EMMA Layout • Layout almost complete • Hardware design far advanced • Many difficulties, esp. due to compactness • Hard work of many, led by Neil
Two EMMA cells Inside of ring D Cavity F All elements parallel in one cell 210mm
EMMA Conclusions • EMMA – proof of principle NS-FFAG • Important for all future NS-FFAG projects • Layout ~complete • Hardware far advanced • Lots learned for future NS-FFAG design & construction • Good collaborative effort • Beam autumn 09