Friday 17th June 2016

Phone details


For discussion:

  • We should consider a beam test using MICE equipment
  • Descope came in at 3-4 M£ and was rejected, so presumably something cheaper
  • RF hardware alone is > 1 M£
  • RF test (a la MTA programme) is probably not sufficiently convincing to get funding so would like a beam test
  • would like to show a "lattice cell" i.e. we have control of the beam in and out of the cell (and emittance is reduced)

"Worked example":


Dan Kaplan
Milorad Popovic
John Cobb
Dave Neuffer
Adam Dobbs
Paul Kyberd
Mark Tucker

Rogers showed slides demonstrating possible revised step IV optics
  • Jaroslaw has reproduced optics result on slide 3, but with solenoid mode
  • Noted that if we use LiH absorber we would need new support
  • Noted that there is about 20 cm extra room around the RF cavity
  • Noted that one could do the energy change measurement at 3 T; then do the emittance reduction measurement at lower field (with reduced resolution measurement of energy change)
Melissa suggested possible physics goals
  • Reacceleration
  • Emittance reduction
  • Operation of RF in magnetic field (w/o increasing the transverse emittance)
    • Hard to achieve with existing hardware
    • Note possibility to move the PRY end plate, perhaps bringing the field out onto the RF cavity
Victoria/Melissa suggested putting RF between TOF and SSU? or RF between SSD and EMR
  • Note vacuum issues
  • Not studying coupling of cooling to RF
    Victoria noted that we may not need a PRY, or may not require end plates. This may make the placement of RF easier
Victoria proposed doing a downstream measurement only
  • Rogers asserted that one would need a movable absorber - RF
  • Paul Kyberd suggested a semi-circular absorber - emittance reduction in half
Dan noted that we can try to unlock STFC/others with new, compelling physics goal
Chris Rogers Noted that we can try to unlock STFC/others with reduced price tag
  • Paul Soler's guidance (guess) was <~ 1 M£ cost to STFC
  • There was discussion about how the cost can be reduced; take risk on RF install
  • Save by reducing shut down between step iv and cooling demo
    • Skimp on RF; with implicit risk
    • Removing effort to redo the SSD region/civil engineering
    • Reducing the schedule (and associated standing army costs)
  • Let the study settle; see how the politics/money develops; then revise the analysis if it looks like it is viable
  • Paul Soler requested a MC study of the cooling performance/momentum change by Monday 27th June; Rogers agreed

2016-06-17_rogers_dedescope.pdf (196 KB) Rogers, Chris, 17 June 2016 17:38