From: M. Palmer & D. Rubin, in ILCDR2008

1. Electron cloud measurements in Cesr-TA during the July-August runfor the SPSU Study Team, 29.09.2009report by S. Calatroni and G. Rumolothanks to J. Calvey, J. Crittenden, Y. Lin, J. Livezey, M. Palmer

2. From: M. Palmer & D. Rubin, in ILCDR2008

3. A quick glance to the CesrTA target parameters...

4. CESR Modifications North IR 15E: Reference Al chamber 15W: C-coated chamber wigglers CLEO South IR

5. Q15E Chamber Initial SEY of a-C coating = 0.98 Q15W Chamber • New gate valves were installed at Q15W&E during Summer 2008 Shutdown to create two short sections in CESR vacuum system. • Vacuum chambers at Q15E and Q15W, with a length of 1.43m, may be replaced with any test chamber that meets specific requirements

6. Both chambers are hit directly by synchrotron radiation Following slides show: • Frequency spectra of the hitting synchrotron radiation • Intensity of the hitting radiation (in number of photons/beam particle/meter) • for 15W, 15E, different energies (2 and 5 GeV), different types of beam particles (e+ and e-)

8. 15W, positrons, 2 GeV RFA location 0.44 15E, positrons, 2 GeV RFA location 0.18

9. 15W, electrons, 2 GeV RFA location 0.15 15E, electrons, 2 GeV RFA location 0.36

10. 15W, positrons, 5 GeV (CHESS) RFA location 1.1 15E, positrons, 5 GeV (CHESS) RFA location 0.45

11. 15W, electrons, 5 GeV (CHESS) RFA location 0.38 15E, electrons, 5 GeV (CHESS) RFA location 0.9

12. 15W vs 15E Current Scans • 15W: Carbon coated, sees more radiation for e+ (see previous slides) • 15E: Uncoated Al, more radiation for e- (see previous slides) • Scans done on 26/07/2009 and 28/07/2009. 3D plots, comparison of e+ and e-,comparison of Sunday and Tuesday’s e+ scans and summarizing plot. Data were acquired with a 45 bunch train, 14ns spacing, 2 GeV • Data acquired on 30/07/2009 with a 45 bunch train of e+, 14ns spacing, 5 GeV, 15W vs. 15E • Data from 01/08/2009, solenoid in 15W on and off, dogleg off and on, different bunch spacings.

13. 15W, e+ 15E, e+ 15W, e- 15E, e-

14. Plots show mean of inner 3 collectors (4,5,6) and outer 6 collectors (1,2,3,7,8,9) for positrons (left) and electrons (right) • Outer collectors ~ primary photoelectrons • Inner collectors ~ primaries + secondaries (?) 15W, e-

15. Plots show comparison of positron runs done on Sunday and Tuesday • 15E (left) sees significant conditioning • 15W (right) does not 15W, e-

16. Comparison of sum of all collector channels (summarizing plot)

17. Run with positrons at 5 GeV, intensity scan (Wednesday 29/07/2009)

18. Run with positrons at 5 GeV, intensity scan (Thursday 30/07/2009): singling out inner and outer collectors

19. Run with positrons at 5 GeV, intensity scan (Thursday 30/07/2009): sum of all the collector channels 15E 15W

20. Run with positrons at 5 GeV on Saturday 02/08/2009. Several intensity scans. Main studies which were done: • Dogleg in 15W on and off. The dogleg is a short dipole with 100G field between the C-coated chamber and the dipole upstream. Its purpose is to avoid contamination from the electrons upstream. • Solenoid in 15W on and off • Change bunch spacing from 14 to 28ns and make a train of 75 bunches (instead of 45) • Monitor the electrons with 9 bunches almost perfectly uniformly distributed around the machine (3 x (280/280/294)) • Pending: • Decrease bunch spacing (to 4 ns) • Run with e- at 5 GeV

21. Run with positrons at 5 GeV, intensity scan (Saturday 02/08/2009): first scan (noisy data because several times there were losses during the fill) with dogleg on

22. Run with positrons at 5 GeV, intensity scan (Saturday 02/08/2009): comparing data from the second (clean) intensity scan with dogleg on with Thursday’s data (dogleg off)

23. Run with positrons at 5 GeV, intensity scan (Saturday 02/08/2009): comparing data from intensity scan with solenoid in 15W off and on (no change in 15E). There is a change in the electron distribution in the collectors

24. Run with positrons at 5 GeV, intensity scan (Saturday 02/08/2009): comparing data from intensity scan with solenoid in 15W off and on (no change in 15E)

25. Run with positrons at 5 GeV, (last week), data from solenoid field scan: the shape of the electron distribution changes while increasing the intensity of the B-field (4000 -> 70 G)

26. Run with positrons at 5 GeV, intensity scan (Saturday 02/08/2009): comparing data from intensity scan with solenoid off and two bunch spacings and train lengths (45 x 14 ns, 75 x 28 ns)

27. Run with positrons at 5 GeV, intensity scan (Saturday 02/08/2009): comparing data in 15W from intensity scan with solenoid off and two bunch spacings and train lengths (45 x 14 ns left, 75 x 28 ns right)

28. Run with positrons at 5 GeV, intensity scan (Saturday 02/08/2009): comparing data in 15E from intensity scan with solenoid off and two bunch spacings and train lengths (45 x 14 ns left, 75 x 28 ns right)

29. Run with positrons at 5 GeV, intensity scan (Saturday 02/08/2009): comparing data from intensity scan with solenoid off and two bunch spacings and train lengths (45 x 14 ns, 9 x 280 ns). Both the sum of all channels and only the sum of the inner collectors are displayed.

30. Scrubbing 5.3 GeV

31. Scrubbing Total pressure

32. Beam ON Beam OFF

33. Scrubbing

34. CESR-TA Sample: contamination? • Less silicon remained after 200C heating than after 150C heating. • Cannot remove the silicon contamination via 150C/200C bakeout. • Cannot heat the sample at higher temperature because the maximum temperature allowed for UHV Al chamber is 200C. • Will not go on with the heating experiment. Slide from CYV

35. CArp14_A Directly stored in a plastic bag from Cornell. Heated up to 150C with kapton tape for 24 h. The silicon contamination obviously comes from the kapton tape during heating. Slide from CYV

36. Before installation in Cesr-TA the Vacuum Lab performs acceptance tests by baking at 150 °C • It is possible that the use of adhesive tape has contaminated with Si the inner wall of the chamber. Tests at CERN are supportive of this possibility • The RGA shows in the 15W chamber peaks for the masses of H2, C, CO, CO2, CH4, H2O, and various hydrocarbons at lower level, but no signs of Si-containing residual gases. It is possible that the contamination contributes with levels of Si in order of 10-13 partial pressure when degassed, which is invisible to the RGA but can change significantly the surface properties. • However, do we really see the effect of the SEY in the electrons measured by the RFA, or are we only dominated by photoelectrons? • The nonlinear behavior of the electron flux measured over an intensity scan seems to suggest that there is multipacting, at least in the central part of the chamber • Preliminary ECLOUD simulations do not predict multipacting dominated electron cloud for SEYs up to 2.0. It appears that the nonlinear behavior of the electron flux as a function of the beam current in the central region of the chamber can also occur for an electron cloud dominated by photoelectrons. Perhaps a better modeling of the RFA in simulations is needed. • Comparison of values of RFA current between bare aluminum chamber and the carbon coated one during e- runs indicate the lower photoemission yield of the latter by a factor larger than 2.

37. 15W, positrons, 2 GeV 15W, electrons, 2 GeV bx = 4.5 m by = 30 m Dx = 1.35 m bx = 4.5 m by = 30 m Dx = 1.35 m

38. 15E, positrons, 2 GeV 15E, electrons, 2 GeV bx = 5 m by = 27.5 m Dx = 1.5 m bx = 5 m by = 27.5 m Dx = 1.5 m

39. 15W, positrons, 5 GeV 15W, electrons, 5 GeV bx = 5 m by = 31 m Dx = 1.32 m bx = 5 m by = 31 m Dx = 1.32 m

40. 15E, positrons, 5 GeV 15E, electrons, 5 GeV bx = 5.2 m by = 36.5 m Dx = 1.3 m bx = 5.2 m by = 36.5 m Dx = 1.3 m