Working Group 3 Summary
description
Transcript of Working Group 3 Summary
![Page 1: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Working Group 3 Summary
Padamsee, Ohmi and Calaga, S. Peggs
![Page 2: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Design crab cavity for these beam parameters
![Page 3: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Layouts Discussed
![Page 4: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Free space = 30 - 60 m
Lateral Space ~ 45 cm ??Small crossing angle (1 mr) does not work, need more space
![Page 5: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Gupta:Quad Pairs for (not so) Large Crossing Angle, 4mrad, why not 8 mrad?
Minimum X-ing angle is determined by how close the other beamline can come
Consider the two counter-rotating beams with the first going through a quad.How close the second beam can be?
Displaced quads with the first beam in the quad and counter rotating beam just outside the coil in a field free region.
It is 200 mm for the geometry on the right
Might work for 800 MHz? Later50 m free space !, 45 cm lateral
![Page 6: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Most Advanced KEK - Three Damping Strategies
• Coaxial damper is very effective is damping TM010 mode (f = 413 Mhz, MHz, Q < 70), TE111 mode (f = 650, 677 Mhz, Q < 20
• Squashed cavity very effective in raising frequency of unwanted TM110 from 500 MHz to 700 MHz I.e. above the cut-off frequency of large beam pipe.
• Large beam pipe removes all modes f > 1 GHz• Filling factor is low
– < 0.1 m
• We need to come up with different concept with larger filling factor• Multi-cells??
– Each HOM becomes n HOMs– Trapped modes
TM010 Q < 70TE111 Q < 20
RF Absorber
Beam
Stub Support
Crab ModeRejection Filter
RF Absorber
Coaxial InputCoupler
f > 1.3 GHz for Monopole Modef > 1 GHz for Dipole Mode
E
Coaxial Coupler
B
B
B
E
![Page 7: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Why squashed cell shape cavity?
TM110 TM010
TM110
TE111
500MHz
500MHz
324MHz
720MHz
UnwantedMode
TM110 - like Mode
500MHz
TM010 - like Mode
413.3MHz
700MHz
650.5 MHz / 677.6MHz
UnwantedMode
Crab ModeCrab Mode
E
B
The squashed cell shape cavityscheme was studied extensively atCornell in 1991 and 1992 forCESR-B under KEK-Cornellcollaboration.
![Page 8: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Cavity Radial Size (43 cm)!!
I.R. 20
I.R. 90
I.D. 188
I.D. 120
I.D. 30
I.D. 240
Input Coupler
Monitor Port
I.R.241.5
483
866Coaxial Coupler
scale (cm)
0 50 100 150
![Page 9: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
1.5 m
KEK-B Cryomodule Size
![Page 10: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Argonne ConceptSingle Cells, More Cells in
Cryomodule. Improve Filling Factor
Input coupler
Rejection filter
Power extraction from coax
Use 2-cellsQext - 1100
![Page 11: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
LBNL Waveguide Damping Concepts
Q ≈ 2000
![Page 12: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
LBNL ConceptsMulti-cells, Waveguide Dampers
Waveguides to dampLOM, HOM and unwanteddipole mode
•Q ≈ 1500, not < 100•One Monopole mode (0-mode) is trapped due to cavity symmetry• Difficult to be damped either by coaxial insert or waveguides in 3-cell • Consider asymmetry and larger beam pipes
![Page 13: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
2-Cell super-structure with damping
Waveguide near beam iris to damp unwanted dipole mode (TM) directly- Strong damping on unwanted dipole mode- Modest damping to LOM, 0 mode
Two 2-cell cavity with waveguide in between beam pipe to damp unwanted dipole mode
• Damping TE11 mode in beam pipe • Effective in damping unwanted dipole mode• The waveguide does not couple strongly with the LOMs Best Q’s are still ≈ 1000
![Page 14: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Open beam pipe to increase damping to Q ≈ 100
Reduced iris to maximizeR/Q of mode
![Page 15: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Tolerances and Other Issues
![Page 16: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Sychro-Betatron Coupling Consequences
• Crab cavity causes an increase synchroton tune (for Qx/y < 0.5). Preset tunes 0.31 is OK.
• Instabilities predicted above 1/2 integer betatron tunes. Dispersion makes it worse, may still be OK (Boaz).
• With pair of crab cavities effect is reduced.
![Page 17: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Tolerances at 1 mr and 400 MHzLeft-Right crab phase tolerance = Zimmerman
< 0.012o (t<0.08 ps)•at c=1 mrad & 400 MHz
Crab -acc cavity phase tolerance - Zimmerman
< 0.012o (t<0.08 ps)•at c=1 mrad & 400 MHz
To keep emittance growth (due to random offsets) < 10%/hr
< 0.008o •at c=1 mrad & 400 MHz
Ohmi - strong-strong simulation, lumi- lifetime ≈ 1 day (white noise)
< 0.0015o
•at c=1 mrad & 400 MHz
Kick voltage Jitter tolerance - Zimmerman
0.1%
![Page 18: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
![Page 19: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Compare to ILC
![Page 20: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
![Page 21: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Field and Phase Stability Requirements
For Near-Future Projects
Different accelerators have different requirements for field stability!
• approximate RMS requirements:– 1% for amplitude and 1 deg for phase (storage rings, SNS, JPARK)– 0.1% for amplitude and 0.1 deg for phase (linear collider, LCLS)– down to 0.01% for amplitude and 0.01 deg for phase (XFEL, ERL
light sources)
From Matthias Liepe, Cornell, PAC 05
![Page 22: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Example: Digital I/Q Control
X
X
90°
0°
X
Vector ModulatorKlystron
Cavity
Master Oscillator
Imeas, Qmeas
Icontrol
Qcontrol
Down Converter
DSP/ FPGA
DAC
DACADC
RFLO
IF
![Page 23: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
LLRF for J-PARC (KEK)
0 5000
2000
4000
6000
Time [ μ ]s
200 400 6005990
5995
6000
6005
6010
[Time μ ]s
200 400 600-15
-10
-5
0
5
[Time μ ]s
DSP/FPGA Mixer&I/Q
•LLRF system for pulsed n.c. proton linac of J-PARC •FPGA based I / Q control•Field stability exceeds specs (±1% in amplitude and ±1 degree in phase )•Base for STF LLRF system
± 0.04 deg
± 0.08%
S. Michizono et al.
Shown for absolute phase
![Page 24: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Cornell LLRF System for ERL operation at QL = 1.2108
Very good field stability demonstrated with 5 mA beam:
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 112.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
time [sec]acce
lera
tin
g f
ield
[M
V/m
]
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 19
9.5
10
10.5
11
ph
ase
[deg
]
time [sec]
A/A 1·10 - 4
0.02 deg
How much better can we do for relative cav-cav relative phase ??
![Page 25: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Upcoming Test
![Page 26: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
![Page 27: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Final Recommendations
• Size calibration: Crab mode at 400 MHz means fundamental TM010 mode is at 259 MHz…ouch !
• Take a very hard look at 800 MHz, is emittance growth due to non-linearity of RF acceptable?
• Use R12 = 45 m => V = 37 MV for 8 mrad• Use advanced gradient = 10 MV/m• Active length = 3.7 m x 4 (regions)• Filling factor = 0.3 => 12 m• Phase tolerance is x2 more relaxed.
![Page 28: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Forwardbeam
ReturnBeam
RF CavityTM010
Can This Work (Maybe 2 Cavities if necessary)
Dampers Dampers
![Page 29: Working Group 3 Summary](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062423/56814c31550346895db937f6/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Advantages
• TM010 is the Lowest Order Mode in the Cavity
•No Degenerate Mode to Worry about
•Damping HOMs easier
•Easier manufacturing
•Will the longitudinal E field cause a problem ??