Roger Barlow Cockcroft All Hands Meeting March 2007

1. The CONFORM ProjectConstruction of a Nonscaling FFAG for Oncology, Research and Medicine Roger Barlow Cockcroft All Hands Meeting March 2007

2. What is an FFAG? Looks like a Synchrotron Strong Focussing (‘Alternating Gradient’) Dipole field increases with particle energy Unlike Synchrotron: fields are constant in time (‘Fixed Field’) and vary wth position: increases across beampipe Orbit changes with energy dB/dt without B/t

3. FFAGs: Good points and bad points Advantages Magnets do not cycle • Cheaper, simpler High Repetition rate • ~kHz rather than ~Hz High duty cycle • Not quite DC, but… Large acceptance • Useful for protons, vital for muons Rapid acceleration • Limited by RF not magnet. Really vital for muons Disadvantages Limited dynamic range Magnets complicated RF frequency has to vary during acceleration cycle Limited experience Abandoned in 1950’s?

4. FFAG renaissance • Improved Magnet and RF technology: materials, modelling • Proton FFAG built and working in KEK, Japan • Plans for proton, electron, muon FFAGs as part of factories

5. The NS-FFAG ‘Scaling’: constant orbit shape Gives constant betatron tune Abandon scaling principle – lose control of tune. Fall into resonance?

6. Argument If the tune changes rapidly, resonances don’t have time to destroy the beam. Rapid acceleration: Big turn-to-turn variation Plausible but needs verifying Advantages (if it works) • Simpler magnets (BR not B log R) • Smaller beam pipe

7. Proton Therapy Using protons for radiation therapy means tumours can be targeted – minimise damage to healthy tissue behind/in front But proton synchrotrons much more costly than X ray linacs

8. Proton Therapy + FFAG Using an FFAG for proton therapy gives • Higher energies than a cyclotron Need 50-270 MeV. • Higher currents than a synchrotron Treatments take many weeks – could be much faster if dose rate higher Or can afford to dump pulses if patient has moved • Variable energy for 3D ‘painting’ Just extract after the appropriate number of turns. No need for energy degraders Less cost through simpler magnets and less space

9. Bid to UK “Basic Technology” Programme Funding for • Building Prototype electron NSFFAG: EMMA at Daresbury (£3.8M + £1.8M) • Designing proton R and D machine (PAMELA) (£0.8M) • Applications from Archaeology to Zoology (£0.4M)

10. The Consortium • CCLRC+Cockcroft – EMMA Construction • Manchester/Cockcroft – Coordination • Liverpool/Cockcroft – Magnets • Oxford/John Adams – PAMELA design • Oxford/Gray Cancer Institute + Birmingham + Imperial + Glasgow – PAMELA and Hadron therapy applications • Surrey+Leeds – general applications

11. Plan • Project start 1 April 2007, last 3.5 years • Build and study EMMA • Design and seek funding for PAMELA • Build up portfolio of FFAG applications • Hadron therapy • Cell irradiation studies • Solar wind simulator • Accelerator Driven Thorium Reactors • Proton drivers for muon/neutron sources • Muon accelerator for neutrino factory A new accelerator for the lab A whole range of new possibilities