Feb. 4, GDE and ACFA plenaryConf office A413

Asia FALC nominees to review: GS Lee and ?? in Japan (japanese at JAEA on Iter); expect a chinese, indian +_ Kurokawa ex officio. Looking for Jia Er, Indian.

Chen welcome; ihep run by academy; 1050 staff, 650 scientists and engineers.BES, atlas, cms, Beijing synch rad lab; free electron laser division. Linac 2.8 gev; 10^31 at 1.9 GeV, 5 mo/yr for HEP; 3 mo. for synchrotron rad.AMS magnet, Ecal for AMS.BEPC upgrade makes two rings and collider; 10^33 at 3.78 Gev cm energy (psi prime). Linac upgrade x10 in current.

Future: charm at BEPC2, Daya Bay, national underground lab, LHC. ILC,Longer term, talking about long baseline from JParc to BeijingChinese spallation neutron source …

Barish: GDE status (pwd = dontaskmax)Confidentiality: no restrictions here, but rdr not official until ICFA on Thursday indico password: dontaskamax.Defer communications with press or outside until Thursday.Shows usual roadmap to 2010. Baseline activities.Rdr: “Complete descripition without much engineering level drawings etc.”RDR management board with stronger control – director, EC, cost engineers, integration scientists. Met weekly.Parameters group reconvened. Removing safety margins OK, but recoverable without extra construction. Push pull ok if 1 week.

Cost estimating in international value scheme. Value cost + explicit labor. Good for determining relative cost of pieces. Basis for assigning shares. Doing without engineering design is new. World wide call for tenders; lowest reasonable tender used.Site specific items (cost regionally), high tech (regional estimates), conventional items (single world estimate). Roll up in area systems.Marx savings – 180M; service tunnel 150M; single stage BC 80M; conventional e+ source <100M -- all rejected. Single e+ tgt, reduced rf in DR, DR consolidated lattice all deferred. Made 11 changes. 28% reduction in value. Do not see further reductions at this time.7 year construction.Fy07: 4.87B$ shared (was 4.89 at DOE brief)

1.78B$ site specific (was 1.89)13.0K person years (22.2 person hrs at 1700 hrs/yr) (was 13.2)

6.65B total value, plus 1.5B labor = 8.35B

Pie charts: shows area pieBar and pie for tech systemsManpower bar chart; biggest is installation.

Flattish time profile.

Weakness is evaluating regional differences – different real costs, different methods.Very complete cost analysis for this stage.

Sanity checks: tesla tdr, scaled tesla; scaled tesla is 5.018, compared with 6.65. difference is primarily is civil construction. 2 tunnels vs. 1, shallow vs deep (and other increases!). 72.5 km tunnels, 100 – 150 m underground. 13 major shafts >9m diameter.443K cu m underground.92 surface buildings for machine – 52.7 sq meters.Personnel crossover every 500m.

Bar chart for civil; message is civil cost about the same everywhere.

Think cost estimate is within 30%. But reference design, not engineering. Future scope creep control by good management, and potential gain from value engineering. Claim can stick with these estimates. Need actual sites. ML limited because of propriety info, regional differences, gradient, learning curve.

Are undertaking risk analysis starting this meeting.

14560 cavities1680 CM560 rf unit71 cryostrings of 4 rf units and 6 of 3 rf units10 cryogenic units

Gradient cost curve from US options. 35 MV/m is up 1% from min at 40. 24 MV/m us 12% up. Has the curve in talk.

Cost impact of lower gradient: S0 program is 2 yrs. ML increase cost up by 11.1%, total project up 6.7%.

Differences in CM cost between Europe and US. Rf power est agrees pretty well in 3 regions.

How good is RDR concept: estimate done by area systems. Now must integrate from the top down better. Technical designs still immature; lack of detailed specs.

Issues: availability. X10 number of elements as earlier machines, so mtbf is a big deal, redundancy etc, good access. Needs lots of attention.

DRs: more accelerator physics than anywhere else; kicker, e-cloud (simulations now only).

RDR provides excellent guidance for next EDR phase.

Q: W. Lohmann : largest item in cost was 1 IR push pull. Consider higher costs for such detectors?A: goal is 1 week swap, comparable to switching between IRs. Costs for detectors was examined. Not comparable to 2nd IR.

Q: Kephart: going forward requires this value and scope is acceptable? How is decision going to be made.A: assume its ok, keep going. Answer is if we get money to do R&D and EDR.

Q: Richard; reduction of rf power is still on table? Yes, but not done.

Q: Kurokawa: ilcsc and falc will do review: report by July. Barry: yes, costs are preliminary now. Reviews by internal committee and MAC gave clean bill of health, so looks forward to international review. Final rdr and cost until july. Talking review in April.

Brau: CERN is aiming for CLIC RDR by 2010? Lowered frequency to use NLC structures.

Yokoya: what is RDRTalks of changes; central injector. one IR. 2 DRs; reduce no of shafts.31 km total length.Still talk of parameter plane.Ac power ~230 MWLow Q, more bnches of less charge – relax BDS, harder work for BC (shorter), DR spacinglarge y, higher emittance but harder BDSlow P; more beam beam interaction

no bunches – 1320 – 2625 – 5120linac dt 189 to 4xx ns etc.

e- source; pol >80%. Laser is on surface in small shaft (cost driven). TW L band linac buncher beta 0.75 to 1

e+ source: helical superconducting undulator at 150 Gev pt., 100 m long (200 m for polarized positrons). Pitch is about 1cm. Can decelerate beam to go below 300 GeV.Need keep alive src, share the 5 GeV linac. Titanium alloy, rotating; 1 m diameter, 1.4cm thick, 100 m/s at rim.

DRs: 2E10 in a bunch. 2600 (5100) bunches. Norm vert eminttance is 0.02 mum. Bunch length 9mm (not yet approved to 6mm); energy spread 0.13%. sixfold symmetry to save on shafts; 4 wigglers. E- CCW, e+ CW. Separate rf stations.

Remaining issues: kickers, e-cloud, fast ion, microwave instab. dynamic aperature, tuning for low emittance. 650 MHz RF. S3 is defining work packages. Also could usee CESR, HERA, KEKB. Kicker fall and rise time 3ns. Unit test at KEK done. Need many kickers, 0.1% stability.e-cloud: need SEY <1.1. coating, solenoid, grooves, clearing electrodes possible to cure

ML: 4.5m diameter tunnels. 3 CMs, 2 with 9 cavities, one with 8 + quad. Almost same length CMs. Cavity spec is 35 mv/m w/ Q >8E9. Zanon is not getting to 35 MV/m yet.TTF module 6 had vertical test at avg 35; 2 cavities now down near 20 mv/m.LL multicell is still only 29 mv/m.Establish high yield by mid 2009.

Eurotev is bidding horizontal 10MW MBK. Toshiba giving good performance at DESY over 700 hrs.

BDS length is 4.45 km; ready for 1 TeV. 10 m vertical separation of IR and DR. 5 GeV line serves as service tunnel for BDS.

Kurokawa: ILCSCIlcsc mou valid to may 2008, reviewed at time of transition to EDR. 11 original signers plus CHEP Korea, France.MAC meeting April 26-27 at Fermilab.Daresbury meeting: review RDR concept and cost methodology. Applaud’s evolution. Congratulate … ILCSC meets June 1 in Desy. WWS will report regularly to ILCSC, also close contact with GDE.School fall 2007 in Erice.Asked GDE for definition of EDR phase in Beijing. Plan, schedule, organization, world cooperation etc. ILCSC will recommend to ICFA and FALC on definition of scope of TDR, organization, legal framework etc.

Okada, physics DCR:Draws on regional reports, DQU, etc.Still have to add more recent parts related to current design (??)

Behnke: detector DCRHeavy on r&d, technologies, options; light on concept studies.Outline: challenges: technologies; performanceCost said to be $400 - $500M per detector, US methodology. (~200M in value system)

Barry: how do you obtain sufficient complementarity technically?

Seryi: MDIShows detailed component layout – collimators, muon wall etc.L* 3.5 to 4.5 M.

CMS approach – surface assembly of few 100 tons. Big time saver, needed for a 7 year schedule. (what if stretch out?) does it save $$ ? looking at two options – pure CMS and modified CMS. Chose option A. Big table of IR hall parameters. 120x25x39 m; service cavern 40x15x10m. 1 400t crane and 2 20t cranes. 2 surface assembly buildings of about same size as underground.

Machine bknds : muons, synch rad, beam gas, extraction losses.Muon wall magnetized to diffuse the muons. Possible second wall if need be added. 100x reduction of muons in TPC – few muons per 100 bunches.Beam gas bknd controlled by keeping low vacuum – 1 nTorr – near IP, and 10 nTorr upstream.Extraction losses minimized in crossing angle solution. Losses look OK even in high L parameter set.Anti DID coils. Wind 2 overlapping coils on solenoid, flatten field in IR. Antisolenoids to compensate det solenoid. Hide within beam hole of FCal.

Push pull. Move last entrance and exit quads with detector. separate cryostats. Inner quads are actively shielded with outside coil for cancellation of field. Can place quads close together.

Hillman rollers, hydraulic jacks. Supporting platform for detector. have service closet riding behind the detector.

Push pull should allow opening detector on platform in IR.

Phinney: RDRHave a draft now . took GLC documents as guide.Draft is open – Nan shows userid and password.Nobu, Nick, Nan + help from Tor, PT, Ewan. Focus on core sections, other sections still to come. Exec summary; accelerator systems (params, e-, e+, DR, rtml, ml, bds,. beam dynamics and ops and reliability to come.Have magnets to cryo. Still some to come. Conventional facilities is OK. Sample sites.Chapter on value estimate, method, result, schedule. After Beijing, will do chapter on EDR. Will have some sections ‘not yet ready’. Must have EC approval to go forward.

April 1 is date for final draft signed off. Supporting tech notes and change control also done by Apr 1. final document published after intl review.

Bialowons: cost estimateCosting rules: no contingency included. Vendor price, not quality checks but this in manpower estimate.P = P1 N^aCavities, cryomodules, rf power sources done in each region.16,088 cavities.240 MW connected power; 345 MW installed capacity.13,200 magnets, 18% superconducting.10 cryo plants, 20kW at 4.5K567 sq feet of surface buildings

Total is 6.65B$ plus 13.0 person years explicit manpower.

High level rf value estimate:Task force to do it from all over. $660M is US estimate. 80% is ML. Klystron learning curve – different for material, labor, other. Each doubling reduces cost by 88%. Existing CPI experience on smaller klystron was 83%.DESY from Tesla from industry and budgetary estimates. Found now is 4/3 of Tesla time – escalation, material cost rise, some additional info. Found 88% reduction for doubling. $650M from this study.Asia: bit higher, but it is due to rf distribution and this understood (no Asian mfgr).

Cryomodule estimates:Each region did estimate. Americas was bottoms up with input from industry. Asia used industry and in house budgetary estimate. Europe used Tesla estimates from industry. Europe is lowest; most mature with industry experience. Asia and America estimates moved toward Europe in the last year.

Technical basis is FLASH; seven cryostats constructed, ops experience.Tesla = 5/4 XFel. Escalation of 13%, increase of raw materials, constant Nb price, added experience. Assume Vert test, module test done in labs, rest in industry. Assume 80% cavities pass Vtest. Pessimistic. $764K per cryomodule. German industry gave info on learning curve a=.82 (doubling factor 88%).

1M person hours in house. Quality testing. Infrastructure for performance testing 53.5$M and 1M person hrs.

US estimate: start in house from JLab and SNS actuals, LHC dipoles, proton driver cost study (vendors), recent ILC purchases. Compared with Europe; on average 50% higher, but differs for different parts. Quads bigger factor; 1.5 for cavities; 20% higher for cold mass and vacuum vessel (regional difference?)

Asia: based on Mitsubishi tesla cavities and Ichiro cavities. A bit less than US.Lower doubling factor pessimistic? LHC factors 80-85%. Shipbuilding is 80-85%. Rhic dipole was 85%. Aaerospace is 85%.

Found no major errors in Tesla estimate. Current 50% discrepancy is about 10% of total cost. Asian and American cost est have moved toward Europe. Still need to understand the differences.

Cryostat risk assessment; (cold mass and cryostats). outside consultants to look at this for Xfel and ILC. Ongoing. Notes that over engineering leads to large costs. Have value – probability curve example.

will update existing cost estimates. Optimize of explicit labor (reduce it?) break labor into skill sets. Understand regional differences.

Omuri: don’t understand reporting to DOE prior to Beijing. Bialowons notes that Tesla was shown to govt first.

Wormser: notes 2x Tesla manpower; why? A: tesla was 7000 man yrs. 2x tunnel length and installation labor scales as tunnel length. But think they may have overdone the manpower.

Delahaye: learning curve is important: a) 88% reduction looks magic number – universal. B) can you apply to any number or saturation? A: for sure no magic number – there are significant variations. Not real saturation (change of a , but since it’s a power law it effectively does saturate. Q: do you assume three different production li nes or only one. A: only one. If go in three regions, average costs go up unless its three companies working in one factory.

Kephart: large civil cost, large piece is tunneling … large uncertainty in tunneling, how does this translate to uncertainty in project. A: experience is that civil estimates are always high. Tunnel companies are conservative? And uncertainties were included in estimate. Thinks civil cost is a capped cost in fact. Q: what probability. A: estimate is best estimate of median cost. In US, used 10 large tunneling contract costs were.

Wormser: $0.1M for 1MW? A: yes, guess at number of number of people to be comparable in cost? [confusion?]

Foster: EDR planning1) ensure internal momentum of gde continues, continue support of community2) produce technical info required for approval3) ensure coordination of r&d

need dialog with govts via FALC. FALC won’t lead, need totell them what gde needs.lookatsimilarprojects:doehasmoststringent requirements meet their needsexpect 2 yr wait after’approval’thinkneed factor2 growth as for iter/xfelruleofthumb 10% of projectneeded in pre-constructionneed projectmanager; reportto directorbid for work packages by consortia/labsworkinBeijing ondefiningwork packagesreceivebids bytask force, decidebyECneed site;need start solicitation within a yearOpen questions: work package definitionOrganization of workpackagesTransition from present systemHow is global R&D coordinated?Role of existing boardsHow do lab directors etc. interface.

Would like more central control of r&d funds.Q: kephart. Bidding is bad. destroy working relationships in collaborationQ:dissolve matrix of technical and areas? A:no,keep but modify..Himel: will need more than single project manager;need several project

engineers.

Nozaki:.asian.news

China: Meeting in.dec.on.role.of.china.in.ilc.Answer.answering.big.physics.questions.Accel.and.detector.technologies.lots of.hi.techExcellent.platform.of.educationChina should. play.a.large.ilc.role.

China has done quadrupoles for atf2; damping ring design; large grain, single crystal NbTsinghua doing Compton scattering expt.

ILC collaboration of IHEP and KEK now. 12 visitors to KEK. Want to do beam dynamics, DR latatice, controls, positron, srf, low level rf, cryomodule, solid state modulator …Now spending about 8.4M RMBNear future, expect 10-15M RMB for ILC related work. (1 Euro=10RMB)

Korea: KNU and CHEP. Alternate bunch compressor, lattice etc. beam diagnostics; single cell Ichiro. Etc (see slides)

India: still exploratory

Japan: notes physics community strategy document; highest priority to ILC realization. Before ILC, will promote flavor physics. Should pursue both goals. Presented to Science Council committee. Started working subcommittee to scrutinize together with astrophysics program. Report in summer.

At KEK, ATF, ATF2, STF under construction. R&D using KEKB under study. Submitted budget request to KEK management last week for next fiscal year. Will know results in a couple of weeks.

Now ~40 FTE, add some more from KEKB. Spending 10 okuYen/year for ILC related R&D (no approval for ILC, so has to be ‘related’). Asked for new funds 100-200 M$ before construction. Needs formal govt recognition. Support from Diet members. Expect to get something.

New program: Top 10. trying to get ILC into this, will get ~10M$ + 50 researchers including from abroad. KEK preparing proposal. Not dedicated to ILC, but for ‘future accelerators’. Proposal includes all accel related activities at KEK (e.g. ERL)

ATF2 beam I Oct. 2008.

Notes support of ILC derives from tech spinoff considerations.

Q: does 2 goal plan affect the KEK timeline on when to decide if to branch to super KEK or ILC? A: still murky. Suggests that getting 1 iab at KEKB may be a way to declare success???

Elsen: European view

LHC is flagship; success is paramount. ILC funds depend on extra sources from national funding or EU.Makes the case for xfel as critical for ILC. Lots of experience coming free from Hera, Dafne … Need to select a few key areas to focus on for ILC.Letter to CERN council strategy group for European srf facility. > 30M euro via EU framework 7.

ESFRI roadmap of October: ILC related items were XFEL, IR FEL … mentions LHC and upgrades and also ILC as LHC complement. Talks of ‘design activities’ which is not applicable (beyond this) and ‘preparatory phase construction’. With 106 MEuro total pot. EU wants to play role in resolving bottlenecks (e.g. getting ILC organized?). D Pasiniis point person for CERNcouncil projects. LHC upgrade and ILC are considered mature enough to apply for. Feel will get only one? CLIC and nu facilities not considered mature.

Ask for proposals for 1-7Meuro per project. 1-4 years. Proposal by May 1. first contracts by end 2007 and first funds before 2008.

Work focus expected on – legal, governance, strategic, financial issues. Technical work also possible but not the core of proposal – prototypes and engineering.

Can have associated states outside EU. Hope to tap EU for EDR funding, then national funds for project.

Framework 7 will have funds for ‘instruments’ still. Look to do scrf, maybe EDR activities and GDE funding. Could view srf funding wholly thru EU packages.

Outlook: not a single source for O(100Meuro) funding, but there are scenarios where can get a good contribution. Plus synergy with XFel.

Needs strong alliance/consortium building.Q: how does targeted approach of EU fit into GDE doing bid packages? A: package has to be a strategic element. Europe will have to tailor its requests to what is fundable

Raubenheimer: Americas view Reviews fy07, fy08 09 planning process. Notes input from RDB. Task forces will help clarify goals.

2007: Buy a CPI and a Toshiba klystronEP facility; US built cryomodule. More engineering.

2008; organize on wbs leaders. Coordinate with RDB.Thinks EDR engineering support is under estimated. Need more international planning!

Hayano: RDBHelped ART, UK PPARC prioritization and KEK jfy2007 budget.Aim to produce plan through the Sn groups.

Start to use project tracking tool for internationalization of R&D see discussion of r&d plan in Beijing

need new ideal R&D list, repriortization on BCD, visit ACD

claim need to projectize R&D, resource monitoring, tracking, milestones. Thinking of MS Project or MS Access. Applying to S0 – S5 now.S0-cavity gradient Lilje. S1 – cryomodule LiljeS2 – linac test facilities Himel, PadamseeS3 DR: WolskiS4 BDS – SeryiS5 positron source - ElsenS6 Control system, llrf – Cawardine S7 rf power source, couplers - Garvey

S0: nice picture of gradients in DESY cavities vs. time. Total >100 cavities over 10 years.Goal: by mid 2009, 35 mv/m with 90% yield. And for large sample (>30) get 95% yield with >80% on first process. Q>1e10.2 phases of tight loop: <10% gradient spread 3-4 cavities, 3-4 successive treatments. Send to other labs. Phase 1 by md 2007; Same process in phase 2.

1st productin like process: >20 cav/region and test up to 3-4 process; by mid 2008

2nd production phase after phase 2 of tightloop, do another 20 cavities/region. Limit of 2 processes. By mid 2009. (see timeline in talk).

120 cavities in next couple of years in three regions.XFEL has 45 on order, some for S0 study. 3 to KEK for study.US 4 Accel and 4 from AES; 8 accel, 6 aes+4 Jlab on order; 3 got o S0 tight loop. Send 3 to KEK agreed.KEK: 4 Tesla-like and 4 Ichiro for STF-1 (Ichiro has troubles still). Propose 4 Tesla+4 Ichiro for STF1.5. 10 proposed for production-like.

Standardize facilities and tests at the labs. Plan parallel effort for large grain.Have capacity for 40 – 60 process cycles.

Labs capability: new EP at ANL; new clean room at fnal, new VTS at fnal.At KEK, new EP at STF, new clean room and VTS in 6 months.

S1: program. Goal ultimate is at least 3 cyomodules with fast tuner; intermediate goal is one cryomodule. Plan: DESY has module 6 instlled (2 cavities now removed); FNAL 1 type IIIa in 2007; 1 III+ and 1 type IV in 2008; 3 type IV in 2009KEK: 2 short CM in 2007; 3 type IV in STF phase 2 in 2009.So candidates for intermediate goal – desy module 6, fnal III+, KEK short module.

S2: determine nature and scale of main linac system test; set specs and timeline; examine relation with future industrialization.

28 reasons need system test. 2009 – 2011 for phase 1 – 1 rf unit test (type 3,4 -> DFM CMs (DFM=design for manufacture)2013 – phase 2: several rf units of final design, multiple manufacturerCost est: phase 1 (9 cryomodules+2 rf systems) plus infrastructe: $86M

S3 : see web for documents.Achievements – list of objectives with priorities, subtopic groups working. Agreed template for r&d work packages; two done in draft.Cornell mtg in Sept 2006 on high priority topics – kickers, e-cloud and impedence and impedance driven instabilities. 46 people. Got first pass on coordinated r&d with milestones and resources for these.Next mtg in Frascati inMarch; lattice design; low emittance tunding; ion effects. Hope to get drtaft plans for these in this meeting.

S4 (Seryi):Charge under discussion now. Assign work packages with responsibilities by WP leader. Two documents coming – international and Americas. List of topics shown.

S5: (Elsen leading)Just setting up the group in Beijing.

S6 not yet formalized; Cawardine. Mission to coordinate Control System.

S7 – GarveyDo plan for rf power.SLAC – 10MW MBK vertical; sheet beam; high effic. 5 MW DESY: 10 MW horizontal MBK; procure CPI and Toshiba with SLAC and KEK collab.KEK: 10MW vertical with SLAC, then 10 MW vertical or horizontal for STF-2; develop 36 beam klystron development..

RDB role on EDR. Reconsider r&d priorities and consider ACD. Develop tracking tools.

Comment: need some task forces for some technical groups: e.g. kickers, magnets?

Eiji Kako: 9-cell tests.(S0 and S1)S0 - vertical tests.KEK tests of Tesla cavities – 12 tests of 4 cavities for STF-1. started in Apr. 2005 2 yr program. Aimed at STF1 test (4 Tesla and 4 Ichiro) with beam.Improved stiffness relative to Tesla/Desy. Details of processing steps. Cavities made by MHI – Japanese company, processed at KEK.12 tests of 4 cavities, getting around 20 mv/m, Q ~ 1e10. final avg removal is 500 um. After 1 process, fairly tight distribution at 20 mv/m with a few bad ones. Looked at

individual cells and saw all but 2 at 30 mv/m – two at 20 mv/m. Claiming second barrel polishing 250 um removal helps. Similar behavior in another cavity – one bad cell. Seeing a good bit of field emission, causing quench.

Seeing some cavities with Q growing with gradient.

DESY tests: 4th production cycle not quite as good as 3rd. two recipes for processing. Next production for XFEL and S0 is 30 cavities in 2 vendors.

Fnal tests: EP at Jlab. 2 tesla cavities made 40 and one got 30 MV/m.

S1 work: at KEK: now have 1 cavity of each type in its cryomodule. Tesla cavity tests at 20 MV/m. LL a little less but low Q. will get beam in Oct 2007. will put in improved cavities in 2008.

At DESY, tests of ACC6: 2 cavities went bad since installation. Down from 35 to ~20.Coupler processing time has decreased. Avg gradient is 28 MV/m.

Saeki: Single cell tests at KEK (and activities elsewhere)In 2005, spread was 41%, , Eacc avg 31mv/m. attribute to human error.Next series, got 20% scatter (6 cavities, 1 processing). Eacc = 39mv/m.Tried final EP with 3 um removal with new acid, get very tight spread. Regrind the existing cells and try new procedure. Get scattering now of 10%, Eacc 41.7 mv/m.

Then did penultimate 20 um EP before the new acid 3um. Scattering is 5% and 46.7 mv/m avg. all six cells went over 40 mv/m. think it has to do with oxidation layer formation.

Now starting a whole matrix of processes. All alternates probably will increase cost but increases yield. Will do the ones they estimate with highest score.

DESY: XFel demands that get certified procedure. Have modified welding prescription. Now discussing how to work on S0.

Saclay has new EP facility, first ops in Oct. got 42.3 mv/m in single cell in VT at Desy.

JLab: focus on large grain/single xtal. Have also a JLab high gradient shape. LL scaled down to 2.3 GHz due to single xtal sheet size. Got 45 mv/m. See uniform performance with 3 Nb suppliers. Starting to discuss S0 program.

MSU: testing low beta for proton driver, half-reentrant cavity shape. Interested in S0 program. Maybe join JLab.

IHEP: getting into cavity fab, collab with KEK.

Mishra: Americas S0Tight loop; production cycles.

Have or will have shortly: 4 from Accel (2 in Jlab, 2 Cornell); have 1 from AES, 3 more in 6 weeks.2 large grain, 2 small grain fab at JLab.6 (AES) and 8(Accel) are on order – deliver in summer. Plan to buy 12 – 24 more in FY07. So total 38-50 for S0 work. Will provide some to KEK.

AC7 processed 3 times to get 41 mv/m. will process 2 times more 10 um EP to get distribution.AC6 processed 2 times to 29 mv/m; do one more then do tight loop. Send this one to KEK.AE1 will perhaps also go to KEK.AC8; did BCP at Cornell, will do vertical EP at cornell.AC9 is at Cornell, will decide whether to do at Cornell or Jlab.AE2-4 will go to Jlab for processing.Provide ANL the trial cavity from DESY and 1 cell to debug EP.

Have spreadsheet to say what happens to each cavity.

Infrastructure: limited fab in industry. Working with Niowave and Roark to develop.

Processing: Jlab can do 30 cycles going to 50ANL: will have 50 grow to 60/yrCornell has 12 cycles/yr.VTS at fnal for 70 cycles/yr.Significant capacity for r&d program

Aim at 200 processes/yr in 2010.

JLab – processing, single cells, field emission studies, LL, large grain/single xtal.

Cornell has 9-cell RE cavity for processing. Is now commissioning vertical EP.

Himel: S2 reportNon exact on phase 2 – depends on how much can be done with single rf unit tests. Coupled to industrialization strategy. May need one long string but don’t ask for it now.Made model for failures vs time (proportional to 1/time). Need to test ~30 CMs for 20 days, or 15 CMs for a year. So sets scale for 5 units tested for a year.

Cost in value units (no labor). Total for components is $24M plus 12M for infrastructure. Non-beam related (cryo lines, llrf) for $15M. Beam related facilities are $35M. Total is $86M. Based on TTF and FNAL New Mu study.

Urakawa: S3 DR11 very high priority objectives; 76 in all. 3 v hi done at Cornell; 3 to be covered in Frascati in March. Have draft work packages for kickers, e-cloud, impedence/instability.

Coirnell meeting: special discussion on proposed test facilities at CESR, DESY, KEKB.

Kicker: <3ns rise,fall. 970 us pulse length. <0.1% stability. Strip line length about 30 cm, with +/-10 kV. Several technologies for pulser. Prototype for bench test April 2007. Modified ATF extraction to allow single bunch extraction for early 2008. have tested with 5kV.

e-cloud. SEY to <1.2. solenoid windings in straight (as in B factories), coating TiN or TiZrV shown effective in lab; grooves. Draft R&D plan with goals and milestones. Public version soon. Have grooved (finned) pipe with coatings.

Impedence. Have timetable and work plan.

Lattice can be improved; change circumference; improve dyn aperture, reduce sensitivity to misalign, reduce no. magnets.

Have table showing who is doing what.

Test facilities: KEK-ATF for tests. PEP2 for e-cloud studies. KEKB plans program incl. E-cloud. CESR-TA proposed for beam dynamics wiggler dominated regime. HERA-DR could be developed into an ILC DR.

Have 40 FTEs and $1100K M&S on DR in 2006. to meet goals, need x2 increse in FTE and x4 in M&S.

Hope to get 1st draft R&D plan within 3 months.

Angal-Kalinin: S4 BDSHi priorities: crab cavities; collimator design, spoilers. MDI interface; final doublet mods for push pull. Anti DID coils to guide pairs to exit hole and anti solenoid for solenoid compensation.

Table of groups involved.

Clarke: positron sources group (S5) 3 day meeting last week in Beijing. Eliminated spare e+ station. Pulsed OMD

Recent results: target (UK and US) Ti alloy, 100 m/s at rim immersed in 5T magnet, so worry about eddy currents. Test of eddy currents agree with simulations by Wei Gai. Get 100’s kW of power dissipated by eddy currents. Looking at activity induced; they are high so remote handling is required. Developing scheme for remote handling in UK, with hot spare with 53 hour turnaround.

Polarization levels. Have 32% with initial undulator. Get substantial physics gain. Need spin rotators

Undulators at Cornell. UK doing its development of same design. Cornell doing longer prototype (few m long); also 4 m prototype in UK. RDR design gives 1.28 e+ per e- in undulator. Want 1.5, so may need longer undulator.

Adolphsen: rf power S7XFel has ordered two prototypes with different forms. One is old baseline, bouncer, IGCT – should work. Developing new vendor (why? … cost). Second is hybrid between Marx and bouncer – still has transformer but 24 Marx cells to control pulse amplitude; from Thales.

Klystrons. Test of Toshiba MBK at Desy. 750 hours, 80% at full power and 10 Hz. SLAC and KEK ordering another for more evaluation. Has 10-20% overhead in power for ILC. Efficiency over 65%. Now developing horizontal klystron for XFel. Expect first in 03/08.

New Thales tube to fix old problems. Is more compact and maybe cheaper. Need develop fast klystron protection against rf breakdown.

Slac sheet beam. Flat beam to lower space charge forces. Aim for 65% efficiency and compatible replacement for MBK. Have team doing design. Uses permanent magnets for focusing, saves 4MW of power for ILC. Intend to build beam tester (validate simulation) and klystron by summer 2008. Beam tester will affect next generation more than first.

Distribution: XFEL DEsy going from catalog items to more compact version. Couplers point upward. Developing phase shifter to replace 3 stub tuner. Integrate loads into waveguide. Adjustable tees to balance load, eliminate weak cavity problem.

At SLAC, doing variable tap offs using mode rotation. Rf distribution without circulators, variable tap offs. Show can accommodate variable gradient between 22 and 34 mv/m. costs 7% more power. Claims ILC cost with this gradient spread would be 7% total cost.

Larsen: Marx ModulatorReplace switched cap bouncer. Big improvement in size and in temperature control. Air cooled. Footprint reduced 3x; cost 2x. N+1 cell redundancy in several places to give shorter mean time to repair. Testing since July. Hoped for 120 kV (12 kV per stage) by September, but delayed. Big safety issues for testing. Have tested 8 cell version, 80 kV. Project 100 hr test in May, without vernier but full power full pulse length. Full system test completed late 2007. then down to run a klystron. LLNL does aspects of design.

Lilje: tools for r&d work packages. Test database. Need projectize for EDR and set goals, milestones– decide on gradient end 2008. RDB guidance on regional priorities is good. Tool is RDB database. Relational – who doing, , deliverables … data base of test results to facilitate dat analysis.Need a global project manager for S0S1.

Q: recommendation for database tools? A: use Oracle relational basis with work tracking added.

Carwardine: Controls RDR to EDRTopics to address for EDR, r&d examples, work package examples.

Lohmann: FCAL

Hauptmann and Gatto: 4th concept and dual compensating calorimetry. Look at the slides. Getting simulated jet energy resolution of 35%/sqrtE. Beam tests for pions is ~25%/sqrtE. Double solenoid + end wall currents for iron-less flux return. SiD vertex and LCD TPC.

Graf: SiD SiW EM cal12 mm^2 pixels; 13 mm Moliere, 5.5 mm X0; 20 5/7 X0 layers, and 10 10/7 X0. Si WImaging caloriemtner with modest resolution1000 pixels to one readout line. Large dyamic range (few 1000).Major beam test in 2008. want to see mip traces. 6 inch wafer pixilated to 1024 pixels. Chip power for 1000 channels looks ok for Kpix.17%/sqrtE room for optimization of Si and W thickness.Passive cooling thru W sheets to sides. X1/x8? Gain switch. Use leakage current to calibrate each channel. Occupancies: live with 4 deep storage registers for bunch chain. 13 bit ADC. Have 4th generation of 64 channel prototype. May need v5. power cycling 1% of time on. Avg power of 18 mW.

Test in SLAC testbeam fall 2007? Go to FNAL for integrated test in 2008.

Para: detector geometriesSi based tracking offers new possibilities for detector geometry.Existing detectors are cylindrical. Defects: degradation of tracking resolution in forward regions where t-channel processes contribute. Ugly corners and transitions. Calorimetric sampling gets worse in forward. Driven by axial wires, axial drift in TPC, etc.

Think of spherical detector. no corners, small and large angle detectors are same. Better mechical strength? Less surface area, so cost (factor 1.5) think of concentric spheres supported on outer one. Split into halves joining at 90 degrees with cables coming there. Gap is of least impact. Solenoid is not ideal – less bending for forward. Wind on sphere or optimize current density as fn of theta. Less stress. Stop winding at ~10 deg wrt beam. Could put on flux return outside as cylinder and plane. Not much help for field inside but acts as shield for the hall. Fields get very big at tip of coil – quench superconductor (hi Tc?)

Kwang-je Kim ANL DR and relatedSingle particle dynamics calculations. Add orbit and coupling corrections. Emittance resolution. Dynamic apertures with errors.

Bunch to bunch variations end to end simulations. Coherent synch instability.

e-cloud and fast ion simulation. Chamber impedence and instabilities – codes need more memory as bunch length shrinks simulation of rf gun.

Participate in Gollin’s expt on fast kicker. DR diagnostics – time resolved streak camera type.Cavity for pilot bunch; resolution < 1um.

Guidice: DR in EuropeEU 6th framework - simulations of e-cloud, ion instability. Deflect work on rf kickers to stripline kicker hardware.

Wiggler optimization; low emittance tuning in presence of defects like ground motion.

HERA as DR: first study of cost of necessary tunnel for injection. This could stop this proposal but not approve it.

Urakawa : Asian EDR plansATF fast kicker studies; fast ion instability studies. Impedence measurements. Microwave instability studies (CSR); low emittance demo.

KEKB study of coatings for e-cloud.

KNU: study of fast ion; optics design impact on fast ion. Simulation of e-cloud and expts at KEKB; PAL: concentrate on fast ion (not cavities)

IHEP. Lattice designs; Possible study of magnets, power sources, controls, instrumentation.

Zisman: US EDR DRART moving to top down planning; not proposal driven. Also S3 oversight. Zisman and Palmer want topical level3 leaders. (e-cloud, kicker …) to coordinate inter-lab effort. Meeting next week to revise fy08-09 program.

Priorities reflect DR changes – e.g. single e+ ring. More emphasis on e-cloud.Cannot duplicate within Americas – and should control duplication inter-region.Need develop milestones, timelines in EDR. What exactly is the EDR? (how much engineering drawings – every last magnet???)

List of who’s doing what. Need prioritize. Seemed a lot of overlapping proposals. And watch overlaps in other regions. Stress need for benchmarking codes against expts. New design of DR power supplies.

e.g. in kicker pulser – need to have milestones for making some decisions and focusing on 2 or so choices to develop engineering level.

Milestones suggestions:Lattice finalized by end 2008Characterize ion effects and control by end 2008

Demo of 2 pm emittance at ATF by end 2008Demo of kicker solution by mid 2009Basic vacuum system design to permit detailed impedance calc by mid 2009 (notes vacuum design must precede impedance calc)Sufficient engineering to demonstrate or validate required technical approaches by mid-2009 – 2 rings on top of each other, wigglers etc.

Target 1 does not permit 2 year EDR ($3M in fy08).

Vic wants to know if DOE allows start of Fermilab site geotechnical and environmental study.

Adolphsen RF summaryAssume EDR by end 2009. Goals: work packages for 2 phases – R&D and engineering for industy. Klystron/modulators: 21 R&D packages and 20 EDR. Total 08-09 FTEs ~80 FTE years.Some of cost risk will remain high due to learning curve. XFel will help (5% of ILC).

Controls: develop RDR models into engineering design. Validate/prototype key concepts – architechture, … Targeted R&D. Controls for test facilities.WP model: some top down and some bottoms up. Americas planning indicated 10+ FTEs for EDR and R&D; assume similar elsewhere.

Llrf: no WP yet, but defining R&D plans. Cavity tests will help develop this.

Solyak: main linac WPs12 WP for quads, r&d on center stability etc. 0.75*yr package design etc. looks like 63 man yrs for magnet design (all of ILC). Priorities on low energy magnet design.Instrumentation: cold bpm (hom), laser wire, beam current toroid, feedback systems.Installation, rises to 900 people at peak. Look for new technology – transporters etc. CFS: $4M to $7M to $19M in next 3 yearrs. Have breakdown of these costs. need before EDR. Availability/commissioning: Himel summary.

Lilje: cavities, c.m planningWhat detail is needed for EDR? When freeze different aspects. What tests needed to submit change request? If change cavity shape, need beam test.Lifetime testing – e.g. large grain. What is latest date for changing gradient? When freeze cm design.

Need formalization of process. Codify what is needed for change requests. Advice on industrialization models. Deadline on gradient value – end 2008Cavity shape is harder to specify.

Hayano: cavity cm r&dBetter processing time now for couplers

Ichiro 9 cell problems: beam tube multipactingStrain at large curve; new design; will come Feb.3.9 GHz at fnal – multipacting problem.Peking Univ studies of large grain. IHEP has cavity processing and test. Concept design for test cryomodule. Ninxiang making 600 RRR Nb.

Zisman: drNow doing top down work managers from proposal driven. S3 will oversee and monitor progress.What engineering level is the EDR to be?R&D priorities: solve e-cloud; solve fast ion. Observe 2pm emittance; provide final lattice.Codes must be benchmarked on experiments.

Technical systems: fast kicker, wiggler vacuum design; wiggler magnet design; overall vacuum; supports and alignment; rf system.

Complementarity – all regions doing most things. Progress at lnf on kickers with FID pulser. Lots of potential at IHEP – good engineering potential; could solve some real problems we now have.Have grooved beam pipes at SLAC for PEP2; design of wiggler chamber at LBL.

Uncertainty over bidding for WPs, no long term control of budgets; how handle unforeseen events? There are many and overlapping work packages -- ~100 activities. Think it is better to associate WP with topic and institution, and this multiplies.

Notes time scale for tests at cesr, hera, kekb are longer than EDR timeline.

Sheppard: Sources WP and EDRPositron collaboration prior to GDE meeting.e- src: source laser demo for EDR/ also DC gun development; demonstrate ILC bunch train extraction from cathode.

KEK still developing the concept of Compton.

Plan for EDR. Feb-apr 07: complete rdr and documentationFeb – june: develop EDR work plan; define deliverables, r&d goals, system engineering, layouts, cost/schedule for construction. Finalize in Hamburg.

Questions of how organization should look.

Seryi: BDS

Need clear definition of EDR – consider EDR as construction proposal wehre most critical systems have completed R&D, drawings, prototypes. Some other systems R&d may continue after EDR and go with prelim sketches.

WP distribution: bidding not appropriate for BDS. Distribute thru pre-negotiation, optimization, evaluation by BDS group and insititutes. Are proceeding with this process. S4 task force will help. need keep flexibility to allow new groups.

Want to keep matrix of TG and AG.

MDI aspects: many WP are dual with accel and detetector. Define the interface requirements clearly. E.g. for final doublet should specify size, geometry; stability requirements, etc.

Very high priority r&d needed:IR sc magnets; details of push pull; crabcavities, meas collimator wakefields; collimator beam damage, run at ATF2; laser wires for diagnostics, intratrain feedback, mdi hardware – E, pol measurements; beam dump design.

Designed many work packages with milestones. Need demonsrate stability of FD – funding limits this. may not have time for iterations.Will need full drawings for beam dump for approval by agencies by EDR time.

Laserwire: 20nm resolution; based on energy spec of 1e-4. test at ATF2.

Kuchler: cfsHave two missions – GDE support and regional interest work. Have draft cfs work schedule. Regional plans will take much effort.

Will do support document for RDR backup where info originally in rdr can be archived.Begin formal investigation of near surface cut and cover design solutions. RDR used single criteria for deep tunneling. Cut and cover is not ‘near surface’. C&C implies uniform terrain but bds has to be laser straight. Cant do c&c below 10m. Near surface is not deep but tunneling. And rock is not so uniform. Transition from cut and cover to bds tunnel is awkward.

Get the site asap!

Need to review regional criteria and site selection processes, similarities and distinctions.Begin to define bid to host procedures for regions. CFS will need interaction with regional governments. How do regions commission geotechnic and environment, approvals, public interactions. Baldy has a schedule of activities – timeline. This will be region dependent. May need more than the three sites.

Site selection will affect the CFS. Definition of process is needed.

Foster: EDR definitionNever meant ‘bid’ for any but the exception. Always thought it was negotiation collaborative way. But need some way to resolve conflict through a process.

Expect all WPs to develop iteratively. Consensual consortia. Project manager team will direct this process.

How define WPs. Said mostly on area systems, but some by technical systems. Need to strengthen the horizontal portion of matrix. May migrate some tech systems to area systems. Survey and alignment would be obvious tech system; magnets is not so clear.

Need know from governments that rdr and cost is on right track. If not, need to work more on cost.

No point in reducing duplication if lose funding.

WP has to address some things that cross areas – e.g. ATF2.

Some activities needed in region as argument to host.

Need to insure that major labs (distributed funding) allows role for those labs to influence EDR. Labs are in ILCSC; go to a council of major stakeholders arrangement?

Project manager needs to influence R&D strategic directions.

Get scope of EDR right – minimum possible. Our plan for end 2009 may not match with the reality of available resources.

Ross: magnets view (Tompkns)Will need x3 to x10 more engineering effort than in rdr. 12 magnet packages, 6 power, 3 instrumentation and test.

Can area systems manage the magnet effort effectively. No, need horizontal organization.

Wants independent magnet working group need 33 FTE over 3 years.Without sufficient support, this is a futile effort.

Cryo systems: (Peterson)Dozen topics. Mostly linac. 10 man-yrs needed for engineering and design.

Broken down by topic. Did not single out global integration as big issue.

Should do controls as well.

Kubo: WP for LET beam dynamics

Talk on survey and alignment

Larsen comment: definitions of EDR. 1) based on time frame. Edr is a document that defines a deliverable for construction. Means industrialization. Work packages aligned to industrial program. Key to develop ACD topics, get prototypes, bid packages for industry by GDE teams. Have to get industrial pricing. ACD is extremely important. Must clearly define what the EDR is.

Baldy: schedule comment for cfs – distinguish common plan and specific site planning. Specific is 70% of the work. So site early is better.

Could you do several EDRs for several sites? Expensive. Doable.

Sheppard: really need to continue the technical systems, not captive in area groups.

Hamburg meeting. lcws07.desy.deMay 30 to june 3Will have ATF collab meeting, Eurotev meeting, WWS, expect 700 people. Cant fit into auditorium – tent in parking lot.May 27-28 is Pentecost holiday. 29th is Zerwas-fest. Registration open – 300 euros until april 15. get ticket for public transport with registration.

Busses: Holiday Inn: 10:30 12:30 14:20 tell A413 secretariat.

Won Namkung Asian Regional Efforts

Komamiya – ACFA summary – the usual general case(get slides – some nice pictures)

PFA is more like 70%/sqrtE at full energy jetsMerging to 2 detectors. First have to understand jet energy measurement. Sees main rationale for 2 detectors to be competition.Getting to 2 detectors: One collaboration with two concepts the ideal case??Keep 2 IRs as ACD

Barish GDE summaryWhat is public? Only that which is in the RDR.Cost now given in ILC units, with conversions shown. 4.87 , 1.78 ILCU, 13.0K person yrs1 ILCU = ..83 euro = 117 yen14560 cavities; 1680 cm’s, 560 klystrons

Highlights need for site (probably need before we’ll get) and this is crucial to schedule for machine.

Will replace overview/chapter 1 with executive summary that includes detector/physics overview.

How good is RDR; built up from bottom in area systems. Need top down look now. Technical systems are still immature. Need value engineering. Challenge in number of elements, 10x previous. Example is e-cloud. Indicates R&D must go in hand with design.

Notes 8 task forces.

EDR comments. Fleshed out plan for Hamburg. What is EDR? Will write a definition after more dialog. Goal is bring ourselves to the point where we are construction ready. Make the proposal. At minimum, have done much of engineering and the r&d that has to be done before construction.

Will define work packages – a task that is is WBS. Reporting to GDE project management office. Will execute mou’s – with definitions, milestones, deliverables.

Restructure GDE: 1) integrate proj mgmt office into present structure; 2) strengthen systems engineering and integration (need top level integration, integrate into area systems effectively). 3) enlarge effort (x2, x3?) to drive engineering design. More engineers. 4) develop WBS in EDMS system; 5) Present R&D plan draft to MAC meeting in spring. Better integrate with EDR. Set priorities and milestones.

Will give prelim EDR report to ILCSC for tomorrow. Finalize in Hamburg. Appoint small task force to develop models for work packages. Search for project manager is underway. Suggestions? Final plans for EDR phase wait the appointment, so he owns the plan.

Q: what is value cost of EDR phase? A: will have to define the R&D thru task forces. Hope to have in a few months. Have to estimate costs of developing sites.

ICFA/ILCSC joint meeting

Barish: Scaled tesla: 5018M$ compared to 6500M$. differences mainly in civil.

Should it highlight ‘host costs’ – tend to presuppose organization. A comment from the MAC.

Wormser: comparison to tesla tdr for desy site? A: did not use desy site. A: desy site is different from the others – soft soil, in water table … so left it out. A: for shallow sites will look at desy, dubna, US.

Oddone: worry on 30%. If took -30%, strains credulity. Too many incompressible elements.

Petronzio: operations cost? – its power (did it) and people (not done). But thinks support level is like present labs. Jonathan worries that this equality is not right. It’s a bigger machine.

Shotter: what expt costs? govts will want this number? BB thinks 10% of accelerator.

Oddone: have scope determined; now need a plan.

Cost of EDR sound like a $1B – this will be tough.

Press release: Add quote from Petronzio – FALC is following the ILC and this is an important step forward.

Round off value numbers 1.8B site dependent2000 persons per year rather than 13000, drop person years.

Comparable to LHC when costs for pre-existing facilities are included. Discussion of what to answer when ‘what did lhc cost’.

Komamiya asks for round off to 1 significant figure.

Site-related not site-dependent. Drop ‘shared’ before ‘value’

Dorfan worried about ‘value maintained’

Kept ‘must translate to cost’

Mention expters? yes

Mention that detectors not included? No, its in fact sheet