Go to the Indico Home Page Oldest event Older event Up to category Newer event Newest event Printable version
  • Compact style
  • Indico style
  • Indico style - inline minutes
  • Indico style - numbered
  • Indico style - numbered + minutes
  • Indico Weeks View
    • Switch to the management area of this event
    Login

    ECN3 TDR - include CCC for SHiP

    → Europe/Zurich
    zoom (CERN)

    zoom

    CERN
    Gunn Khatri (CERN), James Storey (CERN), Jocelyn Tan (CERN)
    Hide

    Notes from Brennan:

    ### TDR meeting CCC 2.12.25 (Bren, Gunn, James, Wim)
    - make every effort to reuse existing CCC design from GSI
        - validate the performance reach (can we reach 1%?)
        - cryo aspects - min/no changes
        - COTS electronics validation in expected radiation field
    - location in beamline - real constraints (aperture, slope)?
        - beam envelopes (100mm), 0.5 m length
    - timing of construction - when can this be built?
    - in-kind or collaboration contribution? Is there budget n ECN3? DOCT? Cost (500 kCHF)
    - Actions:
        - James, Gunn: check expected performance with GSI design
        - James, Gunn: check MINIMUM cryo compatibility with GSI design
        - Bren, discuss with Matt and WP2 on location possibilities/constraints
        - All: check R2E aspects with GSI electronics (need location rad field?)

    Email exchanges:

    Gunn:
    Brennan -> Matt -> Gunn: Action, check location constraints and number of CCC
    • WP2 for integration and beamline constraints
    • Francesco Velotti and Laurie Nevay
    • Bea Sutil for integration
    • R2E contacts:Luigi Esposito and Dominika Oliwia Wasik
    Bren:

    I notice that, in the FS, the precision on the intensity is 5%:

    “To achieve this uncertainty on the flux, it is important to ensure that the knowledge of the proton yield on the target is below 5%”

    Do we even need the CCC for this? You guys were quoting 1% which I guess is much harder.

    Jocelyn:

    The FS requires a relative resolution of the total number of particles, say 5 %.

    Our proposed solution, the CCC which converts the beam induced magnetic flux into current [A], has an unprecedented resolution of ~5 nA under machine conditions: it means any particle flux measurement above the threshold of 100 nA meets or is better that the 5% resolution.

    In fig1 from the FS, the average spill is expressed in A, with different operation schemes. I’ve added the black straight line showing that threshold : you can see that the monitor does the job for all operation scheme but the early commissioning one.

    Putting numbers with the nominal SHiP operation (red square in fig 1), the average beam current of 6.4uA will be measured with a resolution of 0.8 per mille !! Quoting only the relative resolution from the FS is sometimes misleading.

    Furthermore, the CCC in a non-intercepting device, which is a pre-requisite for the experiment.

    George Clooney would have said: “ A CCC, what else ? ”.

    Cheers

    Jocelyn

    Bren:

    Hey Jocelyn,

    Nice to hear from you, and thanks for the explanation! I just had one question then – is the 5nA for the GSI ‘as is’ monitor, or does this suppose a ‘stretch’ (i.e. Ocean’s 11) version?! 😉

    And if it needs the custom version, what is the resolution you get with the standard one?

    Everything else seems clear – thanks!

    Cheers Bren

    Jocelyn:

    Hi Brennan,

    Here’s a reminder on the AD-CCC’s characteristics beforehand: it’s a single [core-SQUID] sensor, surrounded by an early design of superconducting (SC) shield (against the earth magnetic field, nearby magnets, etc…): it measures the beam current with a resolution of 6 nA (averaged over 29000 AD cycles)

    The GSI’s solution featuring dual [core-SQUID] sensors, with much improved SC shielding factor, achieved a resolution below 1 nA in their lab. To be very conservative we target 5nA in the SHiP transfer line. I’m confident this can be easily achieved thanks to the very low monitor bandwidth (1 kHz in the FS).

    The custom design is only about the cryostat’s dimensions : unlike CRYRING, we don’t have any space restriction for its integration. The good point is that both SHiP-CCC and CRYRING-CCC would share the same beam aperture of 100 mm.

    Cheers

    Jocelyn

    Bren:

    Hi Jocelyn,

    OK great – if it reaches the needed performance then we should adopt the identical cryostat design, this removes an extra source of work for us!

    Cheers Bren

    HH
     
    There are minutes attached to this event. Show them.
      • 16:00 → 16:20
        See minutes for discussion notes 20m