EBSS-Syphers 2017 Fri PDF

Day 2
Particle Accelerators and Beam Optics
Mike Syphers
Northern Illinois University
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Exotic Beams Summer School

Argonne National Laboratory
July 2017
msyphers@niu.ed
Outline
§Lecture 1
•Overview of types and uses of accelerators
•Single-pass vs. repetitive systems
•Transverse vs. longitudinal motion Questions?
•Beams and particle distributions
•Transverse beam optics
§Lecture 2
•Dispersion
•Longitudinal beam dynamics
»bunchers, re-bunchers; buckets and bunches
•Optics modules
•Accelerators for nuclear and high energy physics
•Future directions
Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 2

Quick Review ~ = B 0 y x̂ + B 0 x ŷ
B
✓ ◆
A 1 T·m 0@By
B⇢ = pu B = |x=0
Q 300 MeV/c/u @x
✓ ◆ ✓ ◆✓ ◆
x2 + 2↵xx0 + x02 = ✏/⇡ x 1 0 x0
= 1
x’ x0 F 1 x00
hx2 i p
⌘ ✏=⇡ hx2 ihx02 i hxx0 i2
✏/⇡
02
✓ ◆
hx i ↵
⌘ K⌘
✏/⇡ ↵
hxx i 0 K i = Mi K i 1 MiT
↵⌘
✏/⇡
p 1 1
xrms (s) = ✏ (s)/⇡ ✏/ xrms /p
p p

Bending through Dipole Field
L L B·L
✓= =
⇢ (B⇢)
~
B q·B·L
ρ =
p
dθ

Dispersion B⇢ =
p qB · L
q
✓=
p
The bend angle (and/or dipole magnet: ✓ p

p0 + p
=
focusing strength) depends ✓0 p
p0
upon momentum
p [i.e., in “opposite”
Similar to index of at exit, to lowest order, 0
x = ✓0 direction of bend]
p
refraction depending upon 1 p
x ⇡ `✓0
frequency 2 p
likewise, for quadrupole:
dipole steering “error” due
x
to a different momentum p0 + p
—> “dispersion” p0
p
f = f0 (1 + )
focusing “error” due to a p
different momentum Trajectory differences due to momentum differences referred to as “dispersion”
—> “chromatic aberration" x(s)
and, D(s, p/p) ⇡ D(s) ⌘
p/p “dispersion function”

Dispersion [2] r d eta i l s …)
E & S tex t fo
(see
Equation of Motion:
0 ⇢✓ ◆
B 1 1 B0 p0 p 1 1 p
00
x +( + 2 )x = 0 becomes x +00
+ · x=
B⇢ ⇢ 1+ p/p B⇢ p0 + p ⇢0 (s)2 ⇢0 p 0 + p
let x = D p/p, particular solution

(must add the homogeneous solution, which we have found previously)
betatron oscillation
then, ⇢✓ ◆
00 p 1 B0 p0 p 1 p 1 p
D + + · D =
a driven betatron oscillation, p0 1+ p/p B⇢ p0 + p ⇢0 (s)2 p0 ⇢0 p 0 + p
with a constant driving term. keep only terms linear in the relative momentum deviation,
The “driver” is the dipole field ✓ 0 ◆
00 p B 1 p 1 p
within a bending magnet D + + 2 D =
p0 B⇢ ⇢0 p0 ⇢0 p 0
00 1
D +K D =
⇢0
p p
so, solutions are plus const.
sin K` & cos K`

1
Dispersion [3] 00
D +K D =
⇢0
1 s
In terms of matrices… K = 0 : D00 = , D0 = + D00
⇢ ⇢
2
1 s
D = D0 + D00 s +
in the limit of short, or “thin” 2 ⇢
elements, a bending magnet 0
D
1 0 1 2
1 s 2 s /⇢
10
D0
1
primarily changes the slope of the @ D0 A = @ 0 1 s/⇢ A @ D00 A
dispersion function by an amount 1 0 0 1 1
equal to the bend angle of the
magnet same 2x2 as before
1/! = 0 :
0 1 0 ✓ ◆ 10 1
D 0 D0
@ D0 A = @ M 0 A @ D00 A
otherwise, the D transports roughly 1 0 1 1
like a betatron oscillation
So, can use matrix methods (3x3 now; and 2x2 in “vertical” plane)
to solve for: , ↵ ,
x x x
y, ↵y , y
Dx , Dx0 (& , if also have

Dy , Dy0
vertical bending)
FODO Channel
§System of quadrupoles with alternating-sign gradients (F, D, F, …)
separated by distance L, and with bending magnets in-between…
x
p0 + dp0
p0 s
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
F -F F -F F
§Can show …
2
✓ ◆
2F ✓ L typically, on order
Dmax,min = 1± of a few meters
L 4F
Ex: D = 4 m, dp/p = 0.1%, then "x = 4 mm

Beam Size Including Dispersion
• Total excursion due to “off momentum” plus betatron oscillation:
x=x +D ⌘ p/p
2 2 2 2
x = x + 2x D + D
• Assuming no correlation between x# and particle’s momentum:
hx2 i = hx2 i + D2 h 2 i
hx2 i = ✏ /⇡ + D2 h 2 i

Optical Modules
§Very often useful to think of optical systems in terms of modules
§Each module has a purpose and/or special conditions to be met
•general beam transport; achromatic; large dispersion for momentum selection,
charge selection; small dispersion for isochronous transit; final focus onto target;
long drift space for equipment; compact bending; etc. ...
§Large/long systems are best generated with (stable!) periodic lens systems -- may
or may not have bending
§Often need longer spaces for instrumentation, RF, switching magnets,
experiments, etc.
§May need to match one focusing structure into a different focusing structure (e.g.,
change of cryomodule lengths, etc.)
§Simultaneously trying to control (α, β, D, D’)x,y [and sometimes ψx,y] as well as
X,Y,Z and X’,Y’,Z’ of the ideal trajectory along the beam line!
• various computer programs are good at this

Doublets and Triplets
§ FODO Cells
• basic transport; equal spacing; easy analysis
§ Doublets betax
betay
• can be used to generate more space
20
Lattice Functions
15
10
§ Triplets
• can be used to keep beam “round”
5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Collins Straight Section Insertion
§Wish to increase space between quadrupoles, perhaps to insert special
element into the beam line. In order to match H and V optics simultaneously,
we want αx = - αy and βx = βy at the match point(s).
§Where can we use this?

Final Focus

Final Focus [2]
50 betax wall wall_2
§FRIB Final Focus: sigx betay

Dispx*10 beam direction
150
Dispy*10
sigy
§Beam size max/min
Lattice Functions
40
•max/min ~ 35
100
•max(linac)/min(target) ~ 10
rms Beam Size (mm)
50
30
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
50
sigx
20
sigy
40
rms Beam Size (mm)
30
6pi
10
20
10
0.2pi
0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3
Double-Bend Achromat

Achromatic Sections
§FODO Achromatic Bend Section:

Chromatic Corrections and Chromaticity
§Focusing effects from the magnets will also depend upon momentum:
x′′ + K(s, p)x = 0 K = e(∂By (s)/∂x)/p
§To give all particles the similar optics, regardless of momentum, need a
“gradient” which depends upon momentum. Orbits spread out horizontally
(or vertically) due to dispersion, can use a sextupole field:
• which gives (for y = 0)

•
• i.e., a field gradient which depends upon momentum
§Chromaticity* is the variation of optics with momentum; use sextupole

magnets to control/adjust; but, now introduces a nonlinear transverse
field ... *In a synchrotron, “the” chromaticity is the variation of
• can have a transverse dynamic aperture! the transverse oscillation frequency with momentum

In-Flight Production Example: NSCL’s CCF
D.J. Morrissey, B.M. Sherrill, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 356 (1998) 1985.
K500
Example: 86Kr 78Ni
ion sources
coupling 86Kr14+,
line 12 MeV/u
K1200
A1900 focal plane
p/p = 5%
production transmission
stripping 86Kr34+, target of 65% of the
foil 140 MeV/u
wedge produced 78Ni
fragment yield after target fragment yield after wedge fragment yield at focal plane

Principle of Fragment Separator [2]
Principle of Fragment Separator (2) M. Hausmann, FRIB
!   Magnetic separation alone insufficient
!   Numerous nuclides with similar A/Z
!   But with different proton number (Z)
!   Energy loss in matter is Z dependent

!   Bethe formula (above)
!   Interaction of beam with degrader (a piece of metal) leads to

different velocity changes for different fragments
!   Previously similar magnetic rigidities get “dispersed”
!   This allows to separate these by magnetic rigidity ⟶ mass selection

Longitudinal Focusing
§ sometimes referred to as “phase focusing” or “time

focusing”
§ particles of different energy (momentum) move at different
speeds, so tend to “spread out” relative to the “ideal”
particle which is assumed to exist traveling with perfect
synchronism with respect to the oscillating fields
§ wish to study the (longitudinal) motion of particles relative
to this “synchronous particle”

Longitudinal Focusing
§ time of flight — the “slip factor”
§ Evolution due to dp/p or dW/W
§ Longitudinal focusing, time of arrival:

• bunchers, rebunchers, debunchers

Momentum Compaction Factor
§ How does path length along the beam line depend upon momentum?
• in straight sections, no difference; in bending regions, can be different
Look closely at an infinitesimal section along the ideal trajectory…

ds1
p ds ds1
ds
x=D
p d✓ = =
⇢ ⇢+ x
✓ ◆
⇢ d✓ ⇢+ x
ds1 ds = 1 ds
⇢
x D p
= ds = ds
if L = path length along ideal trajectory ⇢ ⇢ p
between 2 points, then
The relative change in path length, per
R D(s) relative change in momentum, is called
L ⇢(s) ds p the momentum compaction factor,
= R ·
L ds p $p = < D/! > along the ideal path

The Slip Factor
L Momentum Compaction Factor:
t= ✓ ◆
v ↵p ⌘
dL/L
dt dL dv dp/p
= 1
⌘ ⌘ ↵p R 2
t L v [D(s)/⇢(s)]ds
↵p = R
dv 1 dp ds
= 2
v p = hD/⇢i D = dispersion
✓ ◆
dt 1 dp ✓ ◆
= ↵p 2 dL/L
t p ↵p ⌘
dp/p
dt dp 1
=⌘ The Slip Factor: ⌘ ⌘ ↵p
t p 2

A Simple Example…
d
R/R0 = p/p0
p p0 p p0
v 1 p
= 2
v p
R R0 R R0
⌧ = 2⇡R/v ⌧ = (2⇡R + 2d)/v
L R p L 2⇡(R R0 ) 1 p
= = = =
L0 R0 p0 L0 2⇡R0 + 2d 1 + d/⇡R0 p0
✓ ◆
⌧ 1 p ⌧ 1 1 p
= (1 2)
= 2
⌧0 0 p0 ⌧0 1 + d/⇡R0 0 p0

Implications of the Slip Factor
§Suppose no bending in the line (e.g., linac), or, perhaps have bending yet γ2 < 1/αp
• then, the slip factor is negative, and particles of higher momentum take less time
to traverse the same distance as the ideal particle
⌧
1 D 1
⌘ = ↵p 2
= 2
⇢
§ If the energy of the particles is high enough in the presence of bending, then can
have γ2 > 1/αp
• in this case, the slip factor is positive — the changes in path length outweigh the
changes in speed when determining the time of flight difference
• here, a higher-momentum particle will actually take longer to traverse the same
distance as the ideal particle, even though it’s moving faster

Linear Motion Very Near the Ideal Particle
§ Particles moving along the ideal trajectory move toward or
away from the ideal particle according to their speed
(momentum/energy) and path length differences
∆t = arrival time relative to the ideal arrival time (∆t = 0)
z
z= c t
z0
L
⌧ = L/v = L/( c)
p
z= z0 ⌘L
p
L p
p 1 E 1 1 W t= t0 + ⌘
Note :
p
= 2
E
= 2
W
c p

Linear Motion Very Near the Ideal Particle [2]
§ Imagine a particle on the ideal trajectory and that has the ideal
energy, Ws. A second particle on the ideal trajectory, but with a
different energy, W, may be ahead of or lagging behind the ideal
particle.
§We will use radio frequency (RF) cavities to provide an accelerating
voltage to the particles as they pass by.
§The ideal particle will arrive at the cavity at the “ideal” time or,
equivalently, at an ideal phase, %s, to receive an appropriate increase
in its energy (which might be an increase of “0”).
§ We will keep track of the “difference” in energy between our test
particle and the ideal particle:
Ws = “ideal” energy
W ⌘W Ws
Acceleration using AC Fields
§Pass through a gap with an oscillating field…
§ W = q E d = qV W/A [eV/u] = (Q/A) eV
§ But here, V is an “average” or “effective” potential; depends upon the

frequency of the field in the gap, the incoming speed of the particle (due
to the field varying with time), and the phase of the oscillation relative to
the particle arrival time:
W [per nucleon] = (Q/A) T ( ) eV0 cos( )

Accelerating Gap
§Create electric field / potential across two “plates”
§Vary the field with frequency, f
D. Alt, et al., MSU

Transit Time Factor
§
Z g/2
1
T( ) = E(0, s) cos(ks)ds
V0 g/2
Z g/2
2⇡
V0 = E(0, s)ds k⌘
g/2
§ For v = c, and for a gap = &/2,

the TTF will be
• Once get up to higher velocities
1
Z /4
2 (v ~ c), then can consider
/2
cos(2⇡z/ )dz =
⇡
multiple-cell cavities since the
/4
velocity is no longer changing.

What are low- superconducting resonators?
Resonant Structures
low- cavities: Just cavities that accelerate efficiently particles
with <1;
low- cavities are often further subdivided in low-, medium-, high-
=1 SC resonators:
.elliptical3 shapes
Courtesy A. Facco
<1 resonators, from very low ( ~0.03) to intermediate ( ~0.5):

many different shapes and sizes

A. Facco ( INFN Introduction to Superconducting Low-beta Resonators MSU 23/11/2010
Normal
Normal vs. vs. Superconducting
Superconducting cavities
Cavities
DTL tank - Fermilab
Normal conducting
Cu cavity @ 300K
Rs ~ 10-3
Q~104
Superconducting
Nb Cavity @ 4.2K
Rs ~ 10-8 LNL PIAVE 80 MHz, =0.047 QWR
Q~109
Superconductivity allows
• great reduction of rf power consumption even considering
cryogenics (1W at 4.2K ~ 300W at 300K)
• the use of short cavities with wide velocity acceptance
A. Facco –FRIB and INFN SRF Low-beta Accelerating Cavities for FRIB MSU 4/10/2011

Quarter-wave Structures
Quarter-wave stuctures: small g/
§Imagine a coaxial L~ /4
waveguide set to transmit Z0 =V
Ι
an EM wave of frequency I0 V V0 CL Tg(
f, and wavelength & = c/f
U~
§Make the waveguide of I01 V0
length L = &/4, and “close”
one end V( z )
V~
0.5
I( z )
• create a “standing I~I
wave” within the
structure 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 L
§ At the end where the E z
field is strong, allow the
beam to pass through B E
two gaps
• separate gaps by
distance #&/2
Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017

A. Facco ( INFN Introduction to Superconducting Low-beta Resona
33
Half-wave Structures -- More Symmetry
Half-wave structures / more symmetry
V( z )
0
I( z )
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2L
~ /2
Ι V0 CL Ι
U ~ 2 V02/(8 Z0)
! A half-wave resonator is equivalent to 2
QWRs facing each other and connected
HWRP ~2 PQWR
Summer 2017 MJS
! The same accelerating voltage is
EBSS 2017
obtained with about 2 times larger power
34
Transit Time Factor for 2-gap '-mode Cavity
T( ) for 2 gap ( mode)
Ez Ez
(constant Ez approximation) d
πg
sin
βλ
T (β ) ≅ sin πd g
πg βλ
lint
βλ
1
L
0.5
T( )
1° term: 1-gap effect g< /2
0 Optimum β 2° term: 2 gap effect d~ /2
1°+ 2° term TTF curve
0.5
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
(For more than 2 equal gaps in
mode, the formulas change only in
the 2° term)
A. Facco ( INFN Introduction to Superconducting Low-beta Resonators MSU 23/11/2010

Use in Heavy ion Accelerators
Would like ability to

accelerate various
isotopes, i.e., a variety of
energies and Q//A ratios
FRIB will use a variety of cavity

frequencies, with each cavity voltage
and phase being independently variable

Multi-cell Cavities
§Here: “ILC” (International Linear Collider) 9-cell style cavity
as v —> c, can use multiple cells in succession
cells space by RF
half-wavelength
Z /4
1 2
for v = c, the TTF will be… cos(2⇡z/ )dz =
/2 /4 ⇡
have achieved > 35 MV/m average accelerating gradient with superconducting cavities
(Note: even larger gradients achieved with non-SC, but very power intensive)

Linear Motion Very Near the Ideal Particle
§ If a group of particles passes through a cavity such that the ideal
(synchronous) particle receives no net energy gain, can give particles
that are ahead/behind a decrease/increase in energy
Ws = “ideal” energy
W ⌘W Ws
VRF
= 2⇡fRF t
W = W0 + qV (sin sin s )
0 10 20
W = W0 + qV [sin( s+ ) sin s ] ⇡ W0 + qV cos s

W ⇡ W0 + qV cos s = W0 + qV cos s (2⇡fRF ) t0
§Can use matrix techniques to propagate the longitudinal motion

Linear Motion through Cavities and Drifts
§ Keep track of time differences and energy differences…

✓ ◆ ✓ ◆✓ ◆
t 1 ⌘ Lc 1
3
1
mc2 t
drift: =
W 0 1 W 0
✓ ◆ ✓ ◆✓ ◆
through cavity: t 1 0 t
=
longitudinal focusing W (2⇡fRF )qV cos s 1 W 0
✓ ◆
dL/L
↵p ⌘
dp/p R
remember —
1 [D(s)/⇢(s)]ds
⌘ ⌘ ↵p 2
↵p = R
ds
Summer 2017 MJS = hD/⇢i

EBSS 2017 39
Bunchers, Re-bunchers, Debunchers
§ If start with continuous stream of particles (DC current,

with no strong “AC” component), can create bunches
(AC beam) using a single cavity (buncher)
§ If have bunched beam that is allowed to travel a certain

distance, the particles within the bunch will begin to
spread out due to the inherent spread in momentum
• re-buncher: mitigate this effect
• debuncher: enhance this effect

Beam Buncher
5*dW_rms = 24.824 eV/u W_width 469.8 eV/u
Q/A = 0.25
incoming DC beam 1.0 after the cavity
4
0.5
2
dW/W [%]
dW/W [%]
0.0
0
−2
−0.5
−4
−1.0
−30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30

dt [ns] dt [ns]
5*dt_rms = 62.221 ns V_1 = 900 V, at 16.1 MHz

L_focus = 2.2 m V_2 = 0 V, at 32.2 MHz
V_3 = 0 V, at 48.3 MHz
500
downstream of cavity resulting time profile
4
400
2
300
Frequency
dW/W [%]
0
200
Eff = 58.6 %
−2
100
−4
−30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30

dt [ns] dt [ns]

Multi-harmonic Buncher
§Use 2, or 3 (or 4?)
harmonics of the
fundamental frequency
to smooth out the sine
wave into a more linear
waveform
V(t) = V1 sin(2πft) + V2 sin(4πft)

+ V3 sin(6πft) + V4 sin(8πft) + …
ReA pre-buncher; Alt, et al. (MSU)

Adiabatic Capture in a Storage Ring

Repetitive Systems of Acceleration
• We will assume that particles are propagating through a system of
accelerating cavities. Each cavity has oscillating fields with
frequency fRF, and maximum “applied” voltage V (i.e., this takes
into account TTF’s, etc.). The ideal particle would arrive at the
cavity at phase %s.
• We will choose %s to be relative to the “positive zero-crossing” of

the RF wave, such that the ideal particle acquires an energy gain of
E= W = qV sin s = QeV sin s
» this definition used for synchrotrons; linacs more often define %s

relative to the “crest” of the RF wave
• apologies for this possible further confusion…

Acceleration of Ideal Particle
§Wish to accelerate the ideal particle. As the particle exits the (n+1)-th RF
cavity/station we would have
(n+1) (n)
Es = Es + QeV sin s
§If we are considering a synchrotron, we can consider the above as the

total energy gain on the (n+1)-th revolution. The ideal energy gain per
second would be:
dEs /dt = f0 QeV sin s
§Next, look at (longitudinal) motion of particles near the ideal particle:

§
§ = phase w.r.t. RF system
§ E⌘E Es = energy difference from the ideal

Acceleration
§ Assume that our accelerating system of cavities is set up so that the ideal
particle always arrives at the next cavity when the accelerating voltage V
is at the same phase (called the “synchronous phase”)
L
2⇡h⌘
En En+1 n+1 = n+ 2 En
E
n n+1
En+1 = En + QeV (sin n+1 sin s)
Notes:
(difference equations)
h = L/ , = c/frf
If L is circumference of a synchrotron then: h = frf /f0 s
where f0 is the revolution frequency,
1.0
In this case, h is called the “harmonic number”
0.5
sin(x)
−1.0 −0.5 0.0
2
E = mc + W ; E, W x

Applying the Difference Equations
while (i < Nturns+1) {
phi = phi + k*dW
dW = dW + QonA*eV*(sin(phi)-sin(phis))
points(phi*360/2/pi, dW, pch=21,col="red")
i=i+1
}
Let’s run a code…

Acceptance and Emittance
§Stable region often
called an RF “bucket”
•“contains” the
particles
§Maximum vertical
extent is the
maximum spread in
energy that can be
accelerated through
the system

Acceptance and Emittance
§Stable region often
called an RF “bucket”
•“contains” the
particles
§Maximum vertical
extent is the
maximum spread in
energy that can be ∆E
accelerated through
the system
§Desire the beam
particles to occupy
much smaller area in
the phase space
∆t
area: “eV-sec”
Note: E, t canonical

Golf Clubs vs.Golf
FishClubs vs. Fish
! Our analysis “assumes” slowly changing variables (including the
energy gain!). Quite reasonable in many Alvarez-style linacs and in
synchrotrons; not as reasonable an assumption in our case
! In linacs, fractional energy change can be large, and so this will distort
the phase space
! Plots from Wangler’s book: Here, assume
that energy is
Here, a more “constant” or
rapid acceleration varying very
is included slowly
(linac)
(synchrotron)

M. Syphers 10 Oct 2011 3
Motion Near the Ideal Particle
Linearize the motion, and write in matrix form…
2⇡h⌘
n+1 = n+ 2E
En
En+1 = En + QeV (sin n+1 sin s)

= En + QeV (sin s cos n+1 + sin n+1 cos s) sin s)
= En + QeV cos s n+1

2⇡h⌘
= En + QeV cos s n+ 2E
En
Thus, 2⇡h⌘
n+1 = n+ 2E
En
✓ ◆
2⇡h⌘
En+1 = QeV cos s n+ 1+ 2E
QeV cos s En

or,
✓ ◆ 2⇡h⌘ !✓ ◆
1
= ⇣ 2E
⌘
E 2⇡h⌘ E
n+1 QeV cos s 1+ 2 E QeV cos s n
✓ ◆✓ 2⇡h⌘ ◆✓ ◆
1 0 1 2E
=
QeV cos s 1 0 1 E n
.
M = Mc Md
“thin” cavity drift
(acts as longitudinal focusing element)
Note: for ( < 0, Md is a “backwards” drift; i.e., "% decreases for "E>0
(when no bending)
( = -1/)2 in straight region (linac)

Outlook for the Field

Advancing Critical Currents in Superconductors
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Applied Superconductivity Center
note: “engineering”
current densities will
be less than these
“critical” current
densities

carried out at the LBNL test facility, are shown in
Accelerator Magnets
16
Figure 12 indicating low and incomplete training 15
Short sample limit
quench training:
curves. Most quench origins were located at the end of
the straight section just prior to the start up of the bend.
A subsequent autopsy at that location showed an
14
13
unintended step in the upper block (Fig. 13) created by 12
Bore field (T)

the cable hard-way bend. In HD3 coils, under
11
construction, the radius of the bend was increased to
magnetic pressure: 2 ease the bend and a supporting “membrane” was added
B
10
between layers. Other test results including strain 9 HD2a

gauges measurements, training performance, quench
P =
HD2b
8
locations, and ramp-rate studies are reported in [5]. HD2c
HD2d
Other improvements now include curing of coils (using 7
2µ0
HD2e
a binder) to better position them prior to reaction. By 6
reducing the reaction temperature of HD3 coils, a more 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
conservative approach was taken by a corresponding Training quench #
reduction of the current density from 3300 A/mm2 Figure 12: Bore field (T) as a function of training
(12 T, 4.2 K) in HD2 to 3000 A/mm2 in HD3. The quenches. The short sample limit of 15.6 T bore field
impact of all such changes reduced the short-sample corresponds to a coil peak field of 16.5 T.
(4 T)2 2
bore field from 15.6 T in HD2 to 14.9 T in HD3.
7
= 6.4MN/m = 64 atm
8⇡10
(13 T)2
7
= 670 atm
8⇡10
Figure 13: Cross-section cuts of HD2 coil #1 close to the
beginning of the hard-way.
Analysis
Figure 10: Magnet HD2 LBNL has been developing 3D finite element models to
(16 T)2
predict the behaviour of high field Nb3Sn
superconducting magnets [6]. The models track the coil
= 1000 atm
response during assembly, cool-down and excitation with
(8 T)2 8⇡10 7
particular interest on displacements when frictional forces
arise. As Lorentz forces can be cycled and irreversible
7
= 250 atm displacements can be computed and compared with strain
8⇡10 gauge measurements. Analysis on the release of local
(20 T)2
frictional energy during magnet excitation results in a
temperature increase that can be calculated. Magnet
= 1600 atm
quenching and training is then correlated to that level [7].
Figures 14-15 show the results of the analysis using the
7
8⇡10
programs TOSCA and ANSYS.
Figure 11: Computed field magnitude of HD2

The essential role of the superconductors
in the search for higher energy
Advanced Magnet Design Texas A&M, LBNL, BNL, CERN …
Proceedings of MT-23
Jeng 400 A/mm2
Nb-Ti up to 8T
§“stress management” Nb3Sn up to 13 T
•“block” coils HTS up to 20 T
•end designs are critical

HTS: more than 1500 tons
procurement by 2030
Concept and models now
§Canted Cosine Theta Design A. Ballarino 34 LTSW2013, 4/11/2013
nested arrangement
of canted coils can
possibly reach fields
up to 16-20 T
LBNL

Accelerator Cavities
§ SRF (efficient, 30-50 MV/m)
§ vs. Cu (100-150 MV/m)
§ development of production
techniques
• surface treatments, doping
of Nb to reduce Q-slope,
etc.
§ Nb-coated materials —
lower cost SRF?
Grassellino, et al.

Some Projects — Current and Envisioned
§ FRIB (MSU) 200 MeV/u, 400 kW Facility for Rare Isotope Beams
§ LCLS-II (SLAC) 4 GeV Linac Coherent Light Source upgrade
§ FAIR (GSI) 34 GeV/u, 100 kW
§ ESS (Lund) 5 MW European Spallation Source (2 GeV p linac)
§ PIP-II (FNAL) 800 MeV p, MW-scale linac
§ ILC (?? Japan ??) 500 GeV electron-positron collider
§ CLIC (?? CERN?? ) 3 TeV electron-positron collider
§ e- — ion collider (?? BNL ??) 5-20 GeV e- / 50-250 GeV ions
§ FCC (?? CERN ??) 100 km Future Circular Collider 100 TeV pp
§ China: 50-80 km ring(s), 240 GeV ee collider; 70-100 TeV pp
§ DAEdALUS cyclotrons, 800 MeV
§ NuSTORM / NuFactory / Muon Collider — neutrino, muon sources
§ …

Future Applications of Accelerators
§Energy — ADS
§Homeland Security
§Defense
§New Medical Techniques
§Isotope Production
§New industrial applications?

Extrapolating to the Future: Livingston Plot
§In 1954, M. Stanley Livingston
produced a curve in his book High
Energy Accelerators, indicating
exponential growth in particle
beam energies over “past” ~25
years;
•the 33 “Bev” (GeV) AGS at Brookhaven
and 28 GeV PS at CERN were underway,
and kept up the trend
§The advent of Strong Focusing

(A-G focusing) was key to
keeping this trend going...

The Past 40 Years

Some limiting factors ...
§superconducting technology -- accel. cavities this time, not magnets
§high accelerating gradient (>35 MeV/m)
§Synchrotron Radiation
•effects obvious in e+e-; hence, the L in ILC
•real estate vs. electric field strength
§stored energy an issue in LHC; beam power issue in linac
§energy deposition in targets, Interaction Points; backgrounds
§small apertures --> alignment tolerances (micron scale)
§requires very small beam sizes — approaching nm scale
•damping rings -- S.R. put to good use
•emittance exchange -- eliminate need for damping rings?

The Livingston Curve Again
adopted from W. Panofsky. Beam Line (SLAC) 1997
§In attempt to compare
e- & p, switch to C-of-M SSC
view of constituents (÷ 8) LHC

?
§seeing a new roll-off

happening ILC
§driven by budgets, if
constrained to present
technology
§thus, need new
technologies to make
affordable...

Lawrence Berkeley Lab Laser Wakefield Acceleration
esearch News: From Zero to a Billion Electron Volts in 3.3 Centimeters - Highest Energies Yet From Laser Wakefield Acceleration 01/30/2007 12:26 AM
lab a-z index | phone book

search:
September 25, 2006 news releases | receive our news releases by email | science@berkeley lab
From Zero to a Billion Electron Volts in 3.3 Centimeters

Highest Energies Yet From Laser Wakefield Acceleration
Contact: Paul Preuss, (510) 486-6249, paul_preuss@lbl.gov
BERKELEY, CA — In a precedent-shattering demonstration of the potential of laser-wakefield acceleration,

scientists at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, working with colleagues
at the University of Oxford, have accelerated electron beams to energies exceeding a billion electron volts
(1 GeV) in a distance of just 3.3 centimeters. The researchers report their results in the October issue of
Nature Physics.
•30 GeV/m, compared to 30 MeV/m in present SRF
By comparison, SLAC, the Stanford Linear Accelerator cavity designs
Center, boosts electrons to 50 GeV over a distance of two
miles (3.2 kilometers) with radiofrequency cavities whose
accelerating electric fields are limited to about 20 million •... and, small momentum spread (2-5%) as well
volts per meter.
The electric field of a plasma wave driven by a laser pulse

can reach 100 billion volts per meter, however, which has
made it possible for the Berkeley Lab group and their
Also, similar (but different) efforts at
Oxford collaborators to achieve a 50th of SLAC's beam
energy in just one-100,000th of SLAC's length.
U Texas, U Michigan, Stanford/SLAC,
This is only the first step, says Wim Leemans of Berkeley
Billion-electron-volt, high-quality electron beams

have been produced with laser wakefield
elsewhere...
Lab's Accelerator and Fusion Research Division (AFRD).
"Billion-electron-volt beams from laser-wakefield
acceleration in recent experiments by Berkeley accelerators open the way to very compact high-energy
Lab's LOASIS group, in collaboration with experiments and superbright free-electron lasers."
scientists from Oxford University.
Channeling a path to billion-volt beams
In the fall of 2004 the Leemans group, dubbed LOASIS (Laser Optics and Accelerator Systems Integrated
Summer 2017 MJS

Studies), was one of three groups to report reaching peak energies of 70 to 200 MeV (million electron
volts) with laser wakefields, accelerating bunches of tightly focused electrons with nearly uniform
EBSS 2017 65
energies.
Lawrence Berkeley Lab Laser Wakefield Acceleration
§Staging Demo

In the Meantime, … FCC?
§ Coming off of the successful first running of LHC, and the Nobel-Prize-
winning Higgs discovery, Europe is engaging the international community
in discussions/studies of a Future Circular Collider
§ China is also looking at large rings for its future
Parameters are a 50 TeV x 50 TeV

p-p collider, with circumference ~100 km
(about same size as the Texas SSC, which
was a 20 TeV x 20 TeV collider)
View from France into Switzerland, showing

existing LHC complex (orange) and a
possible 100 TeV collider ring (yellow)
photo courtesy J. Wenninger (CERN)

quantitatively. To examine matter at vo
the scale of an atom (about 10!8 cen- erg
timeter), the energies required are in or
the range of a thousand electron am
A “Livingston plot” showing a c c elerator
energy versus time, up d ate d to includ e volts. (An electron volt is the energy co
Looking Below the Curve ma chines that c ame on line during the unit customarily used by particle erg
1980s. The fille d circles indic ate new or physicists; it is the energy a parti- ele
up gra d e d a c c elerators of e a ch typ e. cle acquires when it is accelerated
in
of
cle
1000 TeV
pa
cre
§Accelerator Facilities, and the need 100 TeV
Th
ern
for scientists to develop, build, to
M
commission, operate, improve them
Proton Storage Rings
10 TeV (equivalent energy) cle
en
have seen an enormous growth cre
sta
over the decades
1 TeV
m
Proton kn
Synchrotrons tod
§While peak accelerator energies 100 GeV
Particle Energy
to
sio
continue to drive particle physics, 10 GeV Electron
Synchrotrons
vo
much work to do and applications

Electron Linacs
Synchrocyclotrons hi
be
to develop at lower energies
Betatrons
1 GeV lef
Proton Linacs
ley
Sector-Focused th
§Many, many facilities and industrial 100 MeV
Cyclotrons
Cyclotrons
cle
ha
uses are not shown here, but flood
Electrostatic
Generators da
10 MeV m
the area “below the curve” tic
ac
Rectifier
1 MeV
Generators po
th
ro
to
1930 1950 1970 1990 se
Year of Commissioning ta
38 SPRING 1997

A “Final” word...

A “Final” word...
M. Stanley Livingston, 1954

THANKS!
Mike Syphers
msyphers@niu.ed
syphers@fnal.gov
§ Further reading:
• D. A. Edwards and M. J. Syphers, An Introduction to the Physics of High Energy Accelerators, John Wiley & Sons (1993)
• T. Wangler, RF Linear Accelerators, John Wiley & Sons (1998)
• H. Padamsee, J. Knobloch, T. Hays, RF Superconductivity for Accelerators, John Wiley & Sons (1998)
• S. Y. Lee, Accelerator Physics, World Scientific (1999)
• and many others…
§ Many Conference Proceedings — visit http://www.jacow.org

EBSS-Syphers 2017 Fri PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EBSS-Syphers 2017 Fri PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Day 2

Particle Accelerators and Beam Optics

Exotic Beams Summer School

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 2

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 3

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 4

The bend angle (and/or dipole magnet: ✓ p

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 5

let x = D p/p, particular solution

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 6

Dx , Dx0 (& , if also have

Ex: D = 4 m, dp/p = 0.1%, then "x = 4 mm

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 8

• Total excursion due to “off momentum” plus betatron oscillation:

• Assuming no correlation between x# and particle’s momentum:

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 9

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 10

• can be used to generate more space

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 11

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 12

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 13

§FRIB Final Focus: sigx betay

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 15

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 16

• which gives (for y = 0)

§Chromaticity* is the variation of optics with momentum; use sextupole

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 17

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 18

! Magnetic separation alone insufficient

! Numerous nuclides with similar A/Z

! But with different proton number (Z)

! Energy loss in matter is Z dependent

! Interaction of beam with degrader (a piece of metal) leads to

! This allows to separate these by magnetic rigidity ⟶ mass selection

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 19

§ sometimes referred to as “phase focusing” or “time

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 20

§ Evolution due to dp/p or dW/W

§ Longitudinal focusing, time of arrival:

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 21

Look closely at an infinitesimal section along the ideal trajectory…

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 22

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 23

⌧ = 2⇡R/v ⌧ = (2⇡R + 2d)/v

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 24

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 25

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 26

§ W = q E d = qV W/A [eV/u] = (Q/A) eV

§ But here, V is an “average” or “effective” potential; depends upon the

W [per nucleon] = (Q/A) T ( ) eV0 cos( )

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 28

§Create electric field / potential across two “plates”

§Vary the field with frequency, f

D. Alt, et al., MSU

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 29

§ For v = c, and for a gap = &/2,

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 30

<1 resonators, from very low ( ~0.03) to intermediate ( ~0.5):

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 31

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 32

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017

Summer 2017 MJS EBSS 2017 35

Would like ability to

!   Magnetic separation alone insufficient

!   Numerous nuclides with similar A/Z

!   But with different proton number (Z)

!   Energy loss in matter is Z dependent

!   Interaction of beam with degrader (a piece of metal) leads to

!   This allows to separate these by magnetic rigidity ⟶ mass selection