1 / 7

Run 3, thoughts about new collimators

Run 3, thoughts about new collimators. What would we like to find out? How to add geometric/resistive components? How much large does tapered section need to be? Are e.g. exponential tapers better? …? What do we have the experimental resolution to study? From T-480 studies so far

yardley-rosario
Download Presentation

Run 3, thoughts about new collimators

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. Run 3, thoughts about new collimators • What would we like to find out? • How to add geometric/resistive components? • How much large does tapered section need to be? • Are e.g. exponential tapers better? • …? • What do we have the experimental resolution to study? • From T-480 studies so far • Estimated resolution on fitted deflection/collimator offset in linear region = nnn mrad/mm • Predicted resolution = mrad/mm • Meaningless to try to compare designs which differ by less than nnn mrad/mm

  2. Importance of taper angle L a=50mrad a L Thickness = L sina e.g. for Ti6Al4V, 0.6c0 = 21.6mm  1.1mm • If we use ~ “hollowed out” design for damage mitigation, need to be careful with use of taper angles to reduce wakefields, cannot use ever smaller angles if 0.6c0 material distributed along taper … • Assume minimum realistic thickness of wall is 1mm • Constrains taper angle to min. 50mrad • Trailing edge also to consider, factor x2 – “thin” trailing edge of material in damage studies is actually same as our 0.6rad. length material budget! • Shorter jaws would make for cheaper overall system – can we achieve low impedance from fine tuning of geometry close to centre of beam pipe without using extremely small taper angles? • See e.g. some of Jonny’s GdfidL predictions for collims. 6-8 from 2006

  3. George’s summary, from 13-Sep-2006

  4. 38 mm 7 mm cf. collim. 4 smaller r h=38 mm cf. collim. 2, same r 211mm 31mm cf. collims. 4 and 6 133mm cf. collim. 7, and same step in/out earlier data Runs 1-2

  5. 38 mm h=38 mm 133mm As 8, unpolished EDM process, “hollowed” - exists 133mm As used in 2006, necessary for consistency Runs 3, 2007? 133mm As 9, in Ti-6Al-4V - exists 21mm cf. collim. 6, 13

  6. 38 mm 21 mm h=38 mm 21 mm 52 mm OFE Cu cf. collim. 7 – unpolished EDM Ti6Al4V = 0.6c0 Ti6Al4V cf. collims. 7, 13 – unpolished EDM Runs 3, 2007? 21 mm cf. collim. 13 125 mm OFE Cu 21 mm Form t.b.d. cf. ?

  7. (Not) conclusions • Decisions needed ~ now • Do we need additional simulations before starting to manufacture? • Collim. 11 (a.k.a. George’s “F”) • Better than George “G”? • I think so, clearer to compare 11 with 13 than 11 with “G” • Explicit tests of surface roughness, using deliberated roughened surface, Ra~ 10mm (~0.1sy), same as EDM would be relative to real ILC sy • Only leaves room for one non-linear taper design – is this enough??

More Related