The Proton Driver A New High Intensity Proton Source at Fermilab - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – The Proton Driver A New High Intensity Proton Source at Fermilab PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 1fb6bf-ZDc1Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

The Proton Driver A New High Intensity Proton Source at Fermilab

Description:

Fermilab Long Range Plan. Linear Collider and Proton Driver ... BNL/UCLA APS workshop. BNL, ... APS Neutrino Study (year long effort) www.interactions.org ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:31
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 59
Provided by: Keph
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The Proton Driver A New High Intensity Proton Source at Fermilab


1
The Proton Driver A New High Intensity Proton
Source at Fermilab
  • Bob Kephart
  • University of Illinois
  • Dec 6, 2004

2
Outline
  • Fermilab Long Range Plan
  • Linear Collider and Proton Driver recommendations
  • Physics case for an intense proton source
  • Focus Long baseline neutrino experiments
  • Mention Other physics possibilities
  • Existing Fermilab proton source and its
    limitations
  • Proton Driver design
  • 8 GeV SCRF LINAC (bulk of the talk)
  • Synergy with other SCRF projects
  • ILC, RIA, etc
  • Conclusions

3
The Fermilab Long Range Plan
  • In May of 2004 Fermilab completed a Long Range
    Planning exercise
  • The report is available at
  • http//www.fnal.gov/directorate/Longrange/Long_ran
    ge_planning.html
  • The vision expressed in that report is that
    Fermilab will remain the primary site for
    accelerator-based particle physics in the U.S.
    regardless of the siting or schedule for the
    International Linear Collider
  • If successful as host to a linear collider
    Fermilab would be established as a world center
    for physics at the energy frontier for many
    decades.
  • If a linear collider were constructed elsewhere,
    or delayed, Fermilab would strive to become a
    world center in neutrino physics, based on new
    multi-MW Proton Source (AKA Proton Driver)
  • One possible scenario is that an SCRF Linac based
    Proton Driver is built at Fermilab as a first
    step towards a U.S. hosted International Linear
    Collider

Fermilab is pursuing Linear Collider and Proton
Driver RD in parallel. The recent ITRP decision
to use cold technology for the International
Linear Collider allows close alignment of these
paths.
4
The Physics Case for an Intense Proton Source
  • A number of recent workshops have focused on the
    physics possibilities with intense (MW class)
    Proton Sources
  • BNL/UCLA APS workshop
  • BNL, March 3-5, 2004
  • http//www.bnl.gov/physics/superbeam/presentations
    .asp
  • Physics with Multi-MW Proton Source (SPL)
  • CERN, May 25-27, 2004
  • http//physicsatmwatt.web.cern.ch/physicsatmwatt/
  • HIF04
  • Elba Italy, June 2004
  • http//www.pi.infn.it/pm/2004/
  • APS Neutrino Study (year long effort)
  • www.interactions.org/neutrinostudy
  • Fermilab Proton Driver Physics Workshop
  • Fermilab Oct 6-9, 2004
  • http//www-td.fl.gov/projects/PD/PhysicsIncludes/W
    orkshop/index.html

5
Neutrino Physics
  • At all of these workshops, the leading Physics
    case for an intense Proton source is provided by
    the study of neutrino oscillations. Why ?
  • Recent experimental results provide stunning and
    compelling evidence that neutrinos have nonzero
    masses and mixings (K2K, SNO, LSND, KAMLAND, etc)
  • The Standard Model cant accommodate neutrino
    mass terms, which require either the existence of
    right-handed neutrinos ? Dirac mass terms, or a
    violation of lepton number conservation ?
    Majorana mass terms
  • Hence this sector of the Standard Model is
    broken
  • Steve Geer at recent DOE briefing to Robin
    Staffin on the Physics case for the PD

6
Neutrino Oscillations
  • Neutrino masses are small, difficult to measure,
    but ….
  • One way to probe small neutrino mass differences
    is to study neutrino oscillations. Namely where a
    neutrino of one type (e.g. ?? ) spontaneously
    transforms into another type (e.g. ?e )
  • For this phenomenon to occur the neutrinos must
    have mass and the apparent conservation of lepton
    number must be violated
  • The probability for 2-flavor neutrino
    oscillations is given by
  • P sin2(2 ?) sin2(1.27 ?m2 L/E)
  • Where
  • ?m is the mass difference between the parent ?
    and its daughter
  • L is the distance the neutrino travels in
    meters from birth to detection
  • E is the neutrino parent energy, and
  • ? is the mixing angle

7
Neutrino Experiments
  • Many of the neutrino oscillation experiments have
    used neutrinos from the sun or those produced in
    the upper atmosphere by cosmics
  • New generation experiments Use accelerator
    produced neutrino beams. One example is
    NUMI/MINOS which will start taking data in 2005
    with goal of measuring ?? ? ?e oscillations
  • The MINOS near detector is located at Fermilab,
    and a far Detector in the Soudan mine in
    Minnesota ( 730 km away)

130M investment, performance limited by
intensity of Proton Source
8
Why are such neutrino experiments interesting ?
  • Because there is a LOT that we dont know
  • We dont know the masses of the neutrinos
  • We do know that neutrino masses and mass
    splittings are tiny compared to the masses of any
    of the other fundamental fermions,
  • but we dont know why this is the case.
  • perhaps this points to new physics, which
    originates at the GUT or Planck Scale, perhaps it
    indicates the existence of new spatial
    dimensions.
  • We dont know how many neutrino mass eigenstates
    there are.

9
Why are such neutrino experiments interesting ?
  • If the LSND (Liquid Scintillator Neutrino
    Detector) experiment is confirmed, (ie where a
    very large value of Dm2 is observed) then there
    are more than 3 n mass eigenstates.
  • However, only 3 contribute to the Z width ?
    existence of new sterile neutrinos that dont
    couple to the known leptons
  • Currently the mini-BooNe experiment is running at
    Fermilab using neutrinos made with protons from
    the 8 GeV FNAL booster with the goal of
    confirming or refuting the LSND findings
  • This is exciting stuff…
  • But… the experiment is limited by the available
    proton flux at 8 GeV
  • If LSND is not confirmed, then nature may contain
    only 3 neutrinos and, from the existing data, the
    neutrino spectrum looks something like

10
10
Normal
Inverted
?2
?1
or
(Mass)2
?m2atm
?2
?1
?m2sol 8 x 105 eV2, ?m2atm 2.5
x 103 eV2 Note in comparison ?m2LSND 0.2 lt
?m2 lt 2.0 eV2 is huge


We dont know which of these spectra is correct
11
Neutrino Mixing
11
Within the framework of 3-flavor mixing, the 3
known flavor eigenstates (ne, nm, nt) are related
to 3 neutrino mass eigenstates (n1, n2, n3)
(3?3)
(
)
(
)
We know that UMNS is very different from the CKM
Matrix
12
Neutrino Mixing
12
In analogy with the CKM matrix, UMNS can be
parameterized using 3 mixing angles (q12 , q23 ,
q13 ) and one complex phase (d)
(
)
C12C23 S12C13
S13 e-id -S12C23
C12C23 S23C13 -C12S23 S13 eid -S12C23
S13 eid S12S23 -C12S23
C23C13 -C12C23 S13 eid -S12C23 S13 eid
?12 ?sol 32, ?23 ?atm 35-55, ?13 lt
15 non-zero ? would lead to P(??? ??) ? P(???
??) ? CP violation Note the crucial role of s13 ?
sin ?13, if too small gtcant observe CP
13
How can you determine if the spectrum is Normal
Or Inverted ?
Exploit the fact that, in matter,
?e
( )
e
W
( )
e
?e
raises the effective mass of ?e, and lowers that
of ?e. This is usually referred to as the
matter effect
To resolve the mass hierarchy use the fact that
?e part of the ?3 mass eigenstate is very small
14
The spectrum with its approximate flavor content
?2
?3

?m2sol
?1
?m2atm
or

(Mass)2
?m2atm
?2

?m2sol
?3
?1
?? U?i2
??U? i2
?e Uei2
In matter, effective mass of ?3 doesnt change
much but that of ?1, ?2 does. Again, note the
crucial role of a small ?13
15
How can you determine if the spectrum is Normal
Or Inverted ?
the effective mixing angle with matter effects
is sin2 2?M sin2 2?13 1 S
. Signm2( ) - m2( ) At oscillation
maximum, P(??? ?e) gt1
Normal P(??? ?e) lt1 Inverted
30 E 2 GeV (NO?A) 10
E 0.7 GeV (T2K)

()
()



Higher Energy is Better
The effect is
16
How can you determine if the spectrum is Normal
Or Inverted ?
  • Larger E is better but…
  • We want L/E to at the peak of the oscillation
  • Therefore Larger E must be matched by larger L
  • Using larger L ( ie long baselines) to determine
    if the neutrino spectrum is normal or
    inverted could be a unique contribution of a
    new intense proton source at Fermilab
  • If ?13 is large enough then observation of CP
    violation in the lepton sector may be possible
  • If CP violation is observed ?one possible
    explanation of why we exist ! (Leptogenesis)

17
SummaryThe Neutrino Physics Case for the PD
  • Intense proton sources combined with large long
    baseline neutrino experiments allow one to
    perform precise and very interesting measurement
    of neutrino oscillation parameters
  • An ultimate goal is the discovery of and
    measurement of leptonic CP violation
  • Intermediate goals include
  • Resolving the neutrino mass hierarchy problem
  • Precision measurement of neutrino interaction
    cross sections

18
Other Possible Physics with Intense Proton Sources
e.g. BR (KL ? p o n n ) 3 x 10-11
  • Rare decays
  • (window for new physics)
  • Intense Kaon beams!
  • Muon physics (with intense muon beams)
  • Rare muon decays, Search for lepton flavor
    violation m ? eg or m ? 3e
  • Muon EDM, CP violation
  • Precision measurements g-2 (statistics limits
    understanding systematics)
  • Neutrino Factories
  • Anti-Proton Physics
  • When BTEV ends 2015 Fermilab will have by far
    the worlds most intense source of antiproton.
    What should we do with it ?
  • Long pulse spallation neutron source, etc… more
    in minute

19
Fermilabs Existing Proton Source
  • FNAL Accelerator Complex
  • 7 major accelerators !)

35 yrs old
35 yrs old
Drift Tube LINAC 750 KeV ? 116 MeV
Cockroft-Walton H- ions ?(750 KeV)
1994
New LINAC 116 MeV ? 400 MeV
  • Proton Source Linac, Booster, Main Injector

20
Booster Main Injector
1999
35 yrs old
Main Injector Synchrotron 8 GeV ? 150
GeV Protons or Pbars for TeV Collider
? 120 GeV for PBAR production or to the NUMI
target
Booster Synchrotron 15 Hz resonant magnet
cycle 400 MeV H- stripped? 8 GeV Protons Protons
?MI or Mini-BooNE
21
Limitations of Existing P Source
  • Preac/Linac
  • Linac can 40 uA of H- _at_ 15 Hz, Not a performance
    limitation
  • but the equipment is old (experts too!) gt
    reliability is an issue
  • Booster
  • Limits the performance of the proton source
  • Apertures, space charge effects, and losses limit
    the number protons in a booster batch to 6E12
    protons (limit set by activation of equipment)
  • Uses a 15 Hz resonant magnet cycle but heating in
    ramped elements limit cycles with beam to 10 Hz
    25 KW of beam power at 8 GeV
  • Main Injector
  • Designed to Accelerate 6 booster batches/cycle ?
    3E13 P/cycle
  • 120 GeV cycle rate 5/15(injection) 1.5(ramp)
    1.83 sec/cycle
  • MI Beam Power
  • The Main Injector 0.3 MW at 120 GeV (1.5 E 20
    P/Snowmass yr)

22
Limitations of Existing P Source
  • Fancy MI loading schemes could increase the
    maximum number of booster batches from 6 to ll in
    the future (slip stacking)
  • Doubles the protons/cycle but this slows the
    cycle time
  • Already with 6 booster batches 15 of the cycle
    time is used to fill the Main injector

23
Existing Fermilab Proton Source and its
Limitations
  • Several studies have had the goal of
    understanding the limitations of the existing
    source and suggesting upgrades
  • Proton Driver Design Study I
  • 16 GeV Synchrotron (TM 2136) Dec
    2000
  • Proton Driver Design Study II (draft TM 2169)
  • 8 GeV Synchrotron May 2002
  • 2 MW upgrade to Main Injector
    May 2002
  • 8 GeV Superconducting Linac
    Feb 2004
  • Proton Team Report (D Finley) Oct
    2003
  • Report http//www.fnal.gov/directorate/program_pl
    anning/studies/ProtonReport.pdf
  • Limitations of existing source, upgrades for a
    few 10s of M.
  • On the longer term the proton demands of the
    neutrino program will exceed what reasonable
    upgrades of the present Booster and Linac can
    accommodate ?FNAL needs a plan to replace its
    aging LINAC Booster with a new more intense
    proton source (AKA a Proton Driver)

24
Proton Driver Study in Progress http//www-bd.fnal
.gov/pdriver/
  • High Level Parameters
  • 0.5-2.0 MW beam power at 8 Gev
  • 2.0 MW beam power at 120 GeV
  • 6 x power of current Main Injector
  • Two Possible implementations
  • 8 GeV Synchrotron
  • 8 GeV SCRF Linac
  • FLRPC Linac is preferred
  • Better performance
  • More Flexible
  • Comparable in cost
  • LC connection (TESLA technology)

25
PD 8 GeV SC Linac
  • Design concept originated with Bill Foster at
    FNAL
  • Observation / GeV for SCRF has fallen
    dramatically ?Can consider a solution in which H-
    beam is accelerated to 8 GeV in a SC linac and
    injected directly into the Main Injector
  • Why an SCRF Linac looks attractive
  • Probably simpler to operate vs. two machines
    (i.e. linac booster)
  • Produces very small emittances vs. a synchrotron
    (small halo losses in MI)
  • Can delivers high beam power simultaneously at 8
    120 GeV
  • Many components exist (fewer parts to design vs
    new booster synchrotron)
  • Use TESLA klystrons, modulators, and
    cavities/Cryo modules
  • Exploit development/infrastructure from RIA, SNS,
    JLAB, JPARC etc
  • Can be staged to limit initial costs grow
    with neutrino program needs

26
PD Status and Plans
  • Following the FLRPC recommendations FNAL started
    an serious effort to develop the SCRF linac
    design and the Physics case
  • Bill Foster Machine Design
  • Steve Geer Physics case
  • The Aug 04 ITRP selection of cold technology
    for the International Linear Collider provides a
    HUGE boost for idea of an SCRF linac based PD at
    FNAL
  • Much of the development and infrastructure needed
    for a Proton Driver or a cold-technology
    International Linear collider are identical
  • A superconducting linac-based Proton Driver might
    have many possible future missions

Goal DOE CD-0 approval in 05
27
8 GeV Superconducting Linac
Anti- Proton
28
Baseline 2 MW 8 GeV LINAC
8 GeV 2 MW LINAC
Warm Copper
Modulator
Modulator
325 MHz
36 Klystrons (2 types)
Drift Tube Linac
(7 total)
Klystrons
31 Modulators 10 MW ea.
2.5 MW
325 MHz
7 Warm Linac Loads
0 - 87 MeV
DTL 1
DTL 2
DTL 3
DTL 4
DTL5
DTL6
RFQ
RFQ
H -
48 Cryomodules
384 Superconducting Cavities
Squeezed Tesla cavities
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
1300 MHz
0.087 - 1.2 GeV
B0.47
B0.47
B0.61
B0.61
B0.61
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
5 TESLA Klystrons, 10 MW each
96 cavites in 12 Cryomodules
"TESLA" LINAC
24 Klystrons
1300 MHz Beta1
288 cavites in 36 Cryomodules
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
12 cavites/ Klystron
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
29
Cavities and Cryomodules
Tesla SCRF Cavity
Cryomodule at Tesla Test Facility
The Cavities and Cryo-modules for 85 of the
Proton Driver will be nearly identical to those
developed by the TESLA collaboration for the
International Linear Collider
30
What is a Tesla Cryo-Module?
12 Meter long Cryostat Eight 9-cell cavities of
pure Nb Cavities are cooled with 1.8 K superfluid
He Cavities are surrounded by thermal radiation
shields (4 80 K) Couplers carry 1.3 GHz RF
energy from room temp into the cavity Support,
alignment structures tuners, magnetic shielding,
etc/
31
SCRF Cavities
  • Superconducting cavities are remarkable !
  • Single cavities have achieved accelerating
    gradients of gt45 MV/M this is a Huge number…
    Think 45 KV/mm !
  • Superconducting cavities also exhibit some of the
    highest Qs ( stored energy/energy loss per
    cycle) of any system observed in nature.
    Qs gt few x 1010 are typical
  • Gradients in cavities are typically limited by
    field emission, breakdowns, or quenchs
  • Material control and cleanliness are crucial

32
How do you build a SCRF Cryomodule ?
  • Cavities are fabricated from pure Nb Sheet
  • Nb is machined, deep drawn, electron Beam welded
    to form the basic cavity
  • Cavities then are chemically etched, baked, and
    cleaned with utra-pure high pressure water (goal
    smooth surface, no micro size or larger
    contamination which can cause field emission)
  • Work is done in Class 10 clean rooms (similar to
    chip fabrication)
  • The highest gradients are achieved with a final
    electro-polish step 25 ?
    35-40 MV/Meter. (Individual cavities are tested
    after this step.)
  • Cavities are then dressed with a helium vessel
  • Input couplers are added to pass room temp RF
    into 1.8 K cavity environment
  • Cavity string assembly ( 8 cavities) is last
    clean room step
  • Next is cold mass assembly, alignment,
    insertion in outer vessel
  • Finally, the cryomodule is tested (requires
    cryogenics high power RF )
  • All of this requires a lot of
    infrastructure… (eg DESY spend 140 M to build
    TTF I II.
  • Fortunately, a lot of SCRF infrastructure already
    exists at US universities national labs (e.g.
    recent SNS construction)

33
TESLA Cryomodule Assembly
34
(No Transcript)
35
Copy of TTF
Fermilab
For A0 and DESY XFEL
36
RF Power Klystrons
  • RF power for the Proton Driver would be provided
    by high power (10 MW) 1.3 GHz klystrons
  • Three companies have developed these for TESLA
    (Thales, CPI, Toshiba)
  • Modulators would be identical to
    those used by TESLA (built by Fermilab)

37
RF Power Modulators
  • Biggest single component in RF cost for a PD or a
    LC
  • Fermilab designed and built the modulator for the
    TESLA TTF, Its been in service and reliable at
    TTF since 1994
  • Modulators for the Proton Driver and ILC could be
    very similar

38
RF System for 1.2? 8 GeV Linac
  • The Proton Driver design assumes TESLA-style RF
    power distribution works
  • One TESLA multi-beam Klystron per 12 Cavities
  • A Proton Linac (b lt 1) requires a fast ferrite
    E-H tuner to control the phase and amplitude to
    each cavity
  • Also needed if Linac is to alternate between e
    and P.
  • The fundamental technology to do this was
    developed in the 1960s for phased-array radar
    transmitters.
  • This technology work is crucial to the financial
    feasibility of the Proton Driver ( klystron
    modulator are 2 M)
  • Fermilab began RD last year to develop the
    required phase shifters (two in-house designs
    ordered one commercially from AFT)

39
RF Fan-out for 8 GeV Linac
40
RF Fanout at Each Cavity
41
ELECTRONICALLY ADJUSTABLE E-H TUNER
FERRITE LOADED SHORTED STUBS CHANGE ELECTRICAL
LENGTH DEPENDING ON DC MAGNETIC BIAS.
TWO COILS PROVIDE INDEPENDENT PHASE AND
AMPLITUDE CONTROL OF CAVITIES
42
Linac Cost Optimizations Options
  • Staging Extend Klystron Fanout 121 ? 361
  • Drop beam current, extend pulse width
  • Drop rep. rate ? avg. 8-GeV power 2 MW? 0.5 MW
  • But… still delivers 2 MW from MI at 120 GeV with
    existing MI ramp rates
  • SCRF Front End? (using RIA Spoke Resonators)
  • Assumed Gradients for TESLA cavities
  • Baseline 5 GeV linac by assuming TESLA 500
    gradients,
  • Deliver 8 GeV linac by achieving TESLA 800
    gradients.
  • 384 Cavities ? 240 cavities Linac Length
    650m ? 400

43
Staged2 MW_at_120 GeV .5 MW_at_8GeV,SCRF FE
8 GeV 0.5 MW LINAC
"Pulsed RIA"
Modulator
325 MHz
11 Klystrons (2 types)
Klystron
SCRF Linac
11 Modulators 20 MW ea.
3.0 MW
Multi-Cavity Fanout at 10-20kW/cavity
Phase Amplitude Adjust via Fast Ferrite Tuners
325 MHz
1 Warm Linac Load
RFQ
RFQ
H -
54 Cryomodules
0 - 120 MeV
550 Superconducting Cavities
TESLA
Modulator
Klystrons
1300 MHz
10 MW
B0.47
B0.47
B0.61
B0.61
B0.61
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
2 Klystrons
96 cavites in 12 Cryomodules
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
8 Klystrons
288 cavites in 36 Cryomodules
44
Cost Driver Klystrons per GeV
45
325 MHz RF System
MODULATOR FNAL/TTF Reconfigurable for 1,2 or 3
msec beam pulse
110 kV
10 kV
IGBT Switch Bouncer
CAP BANK
Charging Supply 300kW
Single JPARC Klystron 325MHz 3 MW
10kV
TOSHIBA E3740A
Pulse Transformer Oil Tank
TESLA TTF
WR2300 Distribution Waveguide
RF Couplers
120 kW
20 kW
400kW
20 kW
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
Fast Ferrite Isolated I/Q Modulators
Cables to Tunnel
M
E
B
T
R F Q
S
S
R
S
S
R
D
S
R
D
S
R
H-
Medium Energy Beam Transport Copper Cavities
Radio Frequency Quadrupole
Cryomodule 1 Single-Spoke Resonators
Cryomodule 2 Double-Spoke Resonators
JPARC
RIA
46
JHF 325 MHz RFQ and Klystrons
Facilitate a TESLA-Compatible Front End
JHF 325 MHz RF Quad
JHF 325 MHz 3 MW Klystron
TESLA frequency 1300 MHz 4325 MHz
47
SCRF Front End (Pulsed RIA)?
  • RIA group at Argonne has made great progress
    using spoke resonators to achieve high gradients
    for betalt1 cavities.
  • Using these in 1 msec pulsed mode looks
    considerably cheaper than a warm-copper front end
    (if one already has the cryoplant).
  • FNAL/ANL collaboration
  • Shared SCRF infrastructure (chemistry)
  • Investigating common designs, shared production
  • Plan to test RIA cavities in Pulsed mode (U of I
    grad student)

48
Topologically same as a shorted coax
49
Main Injector Upgrades
  • With a Proton Driver beam in the Main injector
    will increase by a factor of 5 from its design
    value of 3.0 E 13 protons per pulse to 1.5 E 14
  • The main injector beam power can also be
    increased by shortening the MI ramp time.
  • Requires additional magnet power supplies
  • Becomes practical with a linac, injection time
    1 ms
  • More protons/cycle and/or faster ramp times ?
    more MI RF power required
  • But shorter ramp time ? beam power goes up.

50
120 GeV Main Injector Cycle with 8 GeV Linac
Standard Ramp
  • Fill time is negligible gt could increase MI ramp
    rate

51
Baseline Proton Driver MI 0.8 sec cycle
52
Comparison of PD options
RDK unofficial
  • With an 8 GeV SCRF Linac one can imagine upgrade
    paths to MI beam powers beyond 2 MW

53
Synergies with other Projects
  • Synergy with many other SCRF projects
  • CBEAF upgrades, SNS, RIA, light sources,
    e-cooling _at_RHIC, eRHIC, etc
  • Strong connection with a Cold Technology LC
  • Both require extensive SCRF infrastructure
    development
  • The last 85 of the Proton Driver linac (1 GeV to
    8 GeV) is comprised of b1 TESLA modules and can
    serve as a large scale demonstration of the 4000
    cryo-modules and RF equipment needed for the ILC
  • Proton Driver 1 of a LC gt improve the LC
    cost estimate ( will pay for itself )
  • Can be used to study ILC reliability and
    alignment issues
  • The synergy between ILC RD and Proton Driver is
    further reinforced by the almost complete overlap
    of a PD and ILC module RD and test plans
  • SCRF PD could be made to accelerate electrons
  • With a low emittance source ? LC beam studies
  • Possibly serve as part or all of a LC ETF
  • All of this can happen while the LC project is
    trying to organize complex international
    agreements and funding

54
Timescale for a Proton Driver ?
  • Always hard to guess
  • Technically limited schedule
  • CD0 in 05
  • CD1 in 06 (preliminary acquisition strategy,
    PEP, conceptual design report, project scope,
    baseline cost/schedule range, PMP, Hazard
    analysis, etc)
  • CD 2/3a in 07-08 (project baseline approved,
    approval to start construction)
  • Funds in FY09 ? Availability of funding from DOE
    may push this later
  • Once funding is approved, typical projects of
    this scale ( MI, SLAC B factory, KEK-B, SNS) have
    construction times of 4-5 years
  • The timescale will also depend on how the Linear
    Collider plays out, over the next few years
    (e.g. PD ETF ?)
  • Its up to us to make the physics case that a
    Proton Driver is required and that it should go
    as fast as possible
  • Making the PHYSICS CASE is crucial in all of this
    !

55
CONCLUSIONS
  • It seems likely that a new intense proton source
    will be proposed for construction at FNAL
  • Similar in scope to the Main Injector Project
    (cost/schedule)
  • A 8 GeV Synchrotron or a Superconducting Linac
    appear to be both technically possible. However
    the SCRF linac strongly preferred if it can be
    made affordable
  • The FNAL management has requested that the 8 GeV
    linac design be developed including cost
    schedule information
  • A Technical Design will be developed (charge to
    Bill Foster)
  • The Physics Case needs to be further developed
    (charge to Steve Geer)
  • These will make it possible to submit a Proton
    Driver project to the DOE for approval and
    funding in the near future

56
Proton Driver RD
  • Neutrino Detector Design
  • Nova ( NuMI off-axis detector) proposal to PAC
  • FLARE ( large LAr surface detector)
  • Large water Cerenkov ? BNL proposal … similar to
    K2K ( deep underground, also could do Proton
    Decay)
  • Underground cavern construction issues
  • Beam Optimization
  • Wide vs Narrow band neutrino beam
  • Energy choice
  • Optimal vs practical baselines ? (L/E ratio)
  • Beam lines ? ( eg for places other than towards
    Soudan)

57
Proton Driver RD
  • High Power Target Design ( 2-4 MW)
  • Target Stations
  • Particle collection elements (eg Horns)
  • Beam Dynamics
  • H- stripping
  • Multi-turn phase paint injection in the Main
    Injector
  • Main injector
  • Beam activation of components
  • Collimators
  • RF upgrade
  • Magnet ramp upgrades

58
PD/ILC RD Plans
  • SCRF Cavity Development
  • Beta 1 SCRF cryo-modules in both US and with
    international partners ( e.g. DESY, KEK)
  • Develop Beta lt 1 elliptical cavities
  • Develop Low Beta spoke resonator cavities in
    collaboration with RIA (ANL MSU)
  • Superconducting Module Test Facility (SMTF)
  • RF Power
  • Cryogenics
  • Infrastructure (most of this common to ILC and
    PD)
  • Many University scale RD projects (for PD and
    ILC)
About PowerShow.com