Choose timezone
Your profile timezone:
1st FCC-ee Booster Meeting
→
Europe/Zurich
1st FCC-ee Booster Meeting
Speaker: Antoine Chance (CEA)
Writer : Quentin Bruant (CEA)
Participants: Fani Valchkova-Georgieva (Bulgarian Academy of Science), Barbara Dalena (CEA), Frank Zimmermann (CERN), Anton Lechner (CERN), Luke Von Freeden (CERN), Roberto Kersevan (CERN), Franck Peauger (CERN), Yann Dutheil (CERN), Alice Lucie Vanel (CERN), Yannis Papaphilippou (CERN), Barbara Humann (CERN), Ivan Karpov (CERN), Sen Yue (CERN), Wolfgang Bartmann (CERN), Jeremie Bauche (CERN), Lotta Mether (CERN), Ali Rajabi (DESY), Ilya Agapov (DESY), Adnan Ghribi (GANIL), Mauro Migliorati (INFN), Paolo Craievich (PSI), Hannes Bartosik (CERN)
Antoine Chance start to present the main objectives and constraints around the HEB w/ a little overview of the agenda.
Start with a recap of the FCC-IS.
Announcement of the demand of a delay for the deliverable linked to the WP (D2.3) (postponed to June 2024)
sharing of the overleaf page for the writing of the document for the deliverable
Extensive overview of the main parameters that are not fixed in the parameter table of midterm report and the margins acceptable.
!!!!!Some needs to be frozen ASAP!!!!!
1) Beam pipe material and diameter:
-> needed for collective effects, vacuum, magnets, etc
2) Operating scheme (including the choice of the size of the booster)
-> needed fo collective effect, operation , RF, injection, mechanical layout, etc
!!!Some need to be frozen on short notice!!!
1) Integration of injection and extraction in system and simulation
2) Injections tolerances to the collider
3) Release of alternative optics
!Some need to be frozen on medium notice!
1) Freeze of booster circumference
Work Organization:
2 deadlines:
Deliverable (end June 2024) and contribution to CDR (end of 2024)
Regular meetings twice a month
Need to freeze parameters' table
Next meetings: 7/02 Beam pipe ; 21/02 booster operation; End Feb/beg March parameters
Discussion==========================================================================================================
Yann Dutheil : Flat top: proposition to not go too much into details of top up injection for the Deliverable and delay it for final report.
Yann Dutheil : Proposition to put the injection scheme directly inside an arc (replacement of few dipoles by the septum and injection kicker). Which cell do we need to plan with this scheme? FODO? Pantaleo's? both?
-> Currently, Pantaleo's cell seems to be the one to work with.
Yann Dutheil : agreement on the importance of the transverse dynamics and parameters but a focus on longitudinal dynamic of the booster also need to be done: What is the length of the beam and the dispersion in energy for the extracted beam to the collider in a top-up scheme.
->Depends on the tolerances of the collider.
Franck Zimmermann: ask precision on the energy loss per turn from the wiggler for beam stabilization-> need to be added to the table
Franck: ask for the state of the proposition to "superimpose" the booster from the collider (getting the same circumference than the collider), hence solving the size of the booster (still problem inside/outside side of the collider). Currently outerside everywhere.
How: Having two inside bypasses of IP and two outside bypasses.
->need to be checked as well as the possibility to use the offset of the booster in the arcs to get the same circumference than the collider
Franck: outline the need for the beampipe parameters to be fixed.
"Mauro Miglioratti: Problem with indicative date and in person meeting proposed."
Mauro Miglioratti: Question of the wiggler go back to the pipe parameters. Do we still need the 50 mm diam beam pipe w/ Pantaleo's optics (the strength of the magnets being a little bit lower)?
->The weaker sextupoles are due to longer optics cells of the Pantaleo's lattice
Luke Von Freeden: Outline the problem of the feasability of the sextupoles required my the current lattices. Gradients are too high->is there a possibility to adjust the length of the sextupoles and the quadrupoles to solve this issue?
-> From pure optics POV, it can be done without hurting too much the lattices. For DA and acceptance, the simulations need to be re-run due to the non-linear aspect of these variables
Ali Rajabi: Access to overleaf document.
Ali : Arc optics FODO: 2 scenarios 60° and 90°: problem with Xsuite. Is there any stable lattice for the collective effects for comparison with the result of Xsuite.
Main concern for the 60° FODO: ->working on a hybrid lattice w/ 3x90°
To have thin lattice from thick ones: WIP
Any close-future improvement will have no great impact on coll.effects
Ilya Agapov: Any chance to have the meeting during the LER workshop 12-16 Feb? Not really due to lack of availabilities.
Closing of the meeting
There are minutes attached to this event.
Show them.
