Der lange Weg zu 200 GeV : Luminosität und höchste Energien bei LEP

Similar documents
The DELPHI experiment at the LEP accelerator at the CERN laboratory

Beam. RF antenna. RF cable

Transverse dynamics Selected topics. Erik Adli, University of Oslo, August 2016, v2.21

Measurements of beam energy

RF System Calibration Using Beam Orbits at LEP

Operational Experience with HERA

LHC operation in 2015 and prospects for the future

Longitudinal Dynamics

Physics 610. Adv Particle Physics. April 7, 2014

Tools of Particle Physics I Accelerators

Accelerators. Lecture V. Oliver Brüning. school/lecture5

Introduction to Accelerators

Introduction to particle accelerators

Beam Dynamics. D. Brandt, CERN. CAS Bruges June 2009 Beam Dynamics D. Brandt 1

Lattice Design and Performance for PEP-X Light Source

Lepton beam polarisation for the HERA experiments ZEUS and H1

Putting it all together

D. Brandt, CERN. CAS Frascati 2008 Accelerators for Newcomers D. Brandt 1

The TESLA Dogbone Damping Ring

Status of linear collider designs:

Introduction to Collider Physics

6 Bunch Compressor and Transfer to Main Linac

Practical Lattice Design

The achievements of the CERN proton antiproton collider

III. CesrTA Configuration and Optics for Ultra-Low Emittance David Rice Cornell Laboratory for Accelerator-Based Sciences and Education

Lattice Design for the Taiwan Photon Source (TPS) at NSRRC

3. Synchrotrons. Synchrotron Basics

The Electron-Ion Collider

Introduction to accelerators for teachers (Korean program) Mariusz Sapiński CERN, Beams Department August 9 th, 2012

The 2015 erhic Ring-Ring Design. Christoph Montag Collider-Accelerator Department Brookhaven National Laboratory

First propositions of a lattice for the future upgrade of SOLEIL. A. Nadji On behalf of the Accelerators and Engineering Division

Note. Performance limitations of circular colliders: head-on collisions

Accelerator Physics. Accelerator Development

Proposal to convert TLS Booster for hadron accelerator

Introduction to Accelerators. Scientific Tools for High Energy Physics and Synchrotron Radiation Research

2008 JINST 3 S Main machine layout and performance. Chapter Performance goals

Accelerator Physics Final Exam pts.

Accelerator development

RING-RING DESIGN. Miriam Fitterer, CERN - KIT for the LHeC study group

An Introduction to Particle Accelerators. v short

Particles and Universe: Particle accelerators

Polarized Electron Beams and Energy Calibration

LEP 2 Energy Calibration and the Spectrometer

Aperture Measurements and Implications

OVERVIEW OF THE LHEC DESIGN STUDY AT CERN

Introduction to polarimetry at HERA

Theory English (Official)

e + e - Linear Collider

PBL SCENARIO ON ACCELERATORS: SUMMARY

Overview of LHC Accelerator

A Very Large Lepton Collider in a VLHC tunnel

ELIC: A High Luminosity And Efficient Spin Manipulation Electron-Light Ion Collider Based At CEBAF

MAGNET SYSTEMS FOR LARGE PARTICLE ACCELERATORS

R&D ON FUTURE CIRCULAR COLLIDERS

Linear Imperfections Oliver Bruning / CERN AP ABP

Short Introduction to CLIC and CTF3, Technologies for Future Linear Colliders

On-axis injection into small dynamic aperture

Accelerator. Physics of PEP-I1. Lecture #7. March 13,1998. Dr. John Seeman

LHC Luminosity and Energy Upgrade

NEXT GENERATION B-FACTORIES

The Large Hadron Collider Lyndon Evans CERN

Bernhard Holzer, CERN-LHC

ThomX Machine Advisory Committee. (LAL Orsay, March ) Ring Beam Dynamics

Superconducting RF Accelerators: Why all the interest?

Physics 736. Experimental Methods in Nuclear-, Particle-, and Astrophysics. - Accelerator Techniques: Introduction and History -

The CERN Accelerator School holds courses in all of the member states of CERN. 2013, Erice, Italy

Polarization studies for beam parameters of CEPC and FCCee

A Luminosity Leveling Method for LHC Luminosity Upgrade using an Early Separation Scheme

Why are particle accelerators so inefficient?

The FAIR Accelerator Facility

Low Emittance Machines

Compressor Ring. Contents Where do we go? Beam physics limitations Possible Compressor ring choices Conclusions. Valeri Lebedev.

SLS at the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), Villigen, Switzerland

CEPC and FCCee parameters from the viewpoint of the beam-beam and electron cloud effects. K. Ohmi (KEK) IAS-HEP, HKUST, Hong Kong Jan.

CERN Accelerator School. Intermediate Accelerator Physics Course Chios, Greece, September Low Emittance Rings

Part V Undulators for Free Electron Lasers

Much of this material comes from lectures given by Philippe Lebrun (head of CERN's Accelerator Technology Department), at SUSSP, Aug

Luminosity Goals, Critical Parameters

Accelerators. There are some accelerators around the world Nearly all are for industrial (20 000) or clinical use (10 000)

BEAM TESTS OF THE LHC TRANSVERSE FEEDBACK SYSTEM

Large Hadron Collider at CERN

COMBINER RING LATTICE

SBF Accelerator Principles

Introduction to Transverse Beam Dynamics

ELIC Design. Center for Advanced Studies of Accelerators. Jefferson Lab. Second Electron-Ion Collider Workshop Jefferson Lab March 15-17, 2004

arxiv: v1 [physics.acc-ph] 21 Oct 2014

Why do we accelerate particles?

Beam Optics design for CEPC collider ring

(a) (b) Fig. 1 - The LEP/LHC tunnel map and (b) the CERN accelerator system.

Energy Calibration of the LHC Beams at 4 TeV

TLEP White Paper : Executive Summary

Beam Diagnostics and Instrumentation JUAS, Archamps Peter Forck Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschnung (GSI)

CESR CREATING NEW FORMS OF MATTER. Meet CESR in Action. To Increase Luminosity

Ultra-Low Emittance Storage Ring. David L. Rubin December 22, 2011

Low Emittance Machines

ILC Damping Ring Alternative Lattice Design **

General Considerations

PBL (Problem-Based Learning) scenario for Accelerator Physics Mats Lindroos and E. Métral (CERN, Switzerland) Lund University, Sweden, March 19-23,

The LHC. Part 1. Corsi di Dottorato Corso di Fisica delle Alte Energie Maggio 2014 Per Grafstrom CERN and University of Bologna

FACET-II Design Update

Transcription:

Der lange Weg zu 200 GeV : Luminosität und höchste Energien bei LEP J. Wenninger CERN SPS/LEP Operation Introduction Beam energies of 100 GeV and more... Luminosity performance Beam energy calibration Outlook

The LEP Ring LEP = Large Electron Positron Collider JURA IP 4 ALEPH IP 5 OPAL IP 6 LEP SUISSE IP 3 IP 7 CERN PREVESSIN L3 SPS DELPHI IP 2 IP 8 FRANCE PS AIRPORT CERN MEYRIN LEP Tunnel : Length : 26.7 km Depth : 50 to 175 m below the surface 8 arcs and 8 straight sections 4 experiments : L3, ALEPH, OPAL and DELPHI Revolution frequency f rev = 11.2 khz

LEP Energy Range LEP was designed to cover a beam energy range of 20 to 100 GeV for Z and W bosons studies. σ [nb] 10 2 10 e + e - Z ff - 1 10-1 10-2 e + e - W + W - 50 100 150 200 250 s [GeV] 1989-1995 : Z resonance study (LEP 1/ LEP 100) M Z = 91.19 GeV/c 2 E 45 GeV Large statistics : 16 10 6 decays observed! 1996-2000 : W pair production (LEP 2/ LEP 200) M W = 80.5 GeV/c 2 80 GeV > E 100 (?) GeV Small statistics : 4 10 5 decays expected!

Energy Loss A unique feature of LEP are the large effects of Synchrotron Radiation The energy lost per turn E loss depends on the beam energy E and the bending radius R(= 4.2 km) : E loss E 4 /R E E loss E loss /E Power per 1 ma (GeV) (MeV/turn) (%) (MW) 22 7 0.03 0.007 45 120 0.27 0.120 90 1919 2.13 1.919 100 2925 2.95 2.925 Note : 1 ma 5.5 10 11 particles Obviously E loss must be compensated by the Radio-Frequency (RF) system with an accelerating voltage U a : eu a > E loss The very large ratio E loss /E has important consequences for the two beams in the pipe : Different orbits ( orbit sawtooth ) Different local energies ( energy sawtooth ) Different beam optics ( beam sizes,...) Very strong damping of oscillations

Energy and Orbit Sawtooth The electron and position horizontal orbits with respect to the magnet axis look like sawtooths along the ring : RF RF RF RF x (mm) 3 2 1 e - 0-1 -2 e + -3 0 10 20 96 GeV s (km) The sawtooth is due to : Continuous energy loss in the arc sections Localised energy gains in the RF system When : x > 0 local energy > average energy x < 0 local energy < average energy

The LEP1 RF System Storage Cavity The Copper RF cavities for LEP1 : Maximum field gradients E a =1.4 MV/m Total length of the cavities = 252 m Maximum RF voltage U a = 350 MV Only 10% of the energy is transfered to the beam... the rest is heating the walls... The energy oscillates between the RFcavity(high losses) andthe storage cavity (low losses) 50% reduction of the losses. Presently 50% of the cavities have been removed to make room for superconducting ones.

The LEP2 Superconducting RF System For beam energies of 80-100 GeV it is excluded to use Cu cavities : There is not enough free space. The power requirement would be to high. Therefore the choice of a superconducting RF system for LEP2 was natural and necessary : ForNiobium gradientscan reach 50MV/m before super-conductivity breaks down (B field at super-conductor surface). In practice gradients are limited to lower values : LEP E a =6-7MV/m TESLA E a 20-30 MV/m The LEP technology is based on SC films. A 1.5 µm superconducting Niobium film is deposited on a Copper substrate : The thermal conductivity of Cu is a factor 5 to 10 higher than that of Nb : better heat evacuation less sensitivity to quenches The material cheaper Production is very delicate (thin surface)

Superconducting RF Cavities A LEP SC cavity module Design gradient is E a =6MV/m. With beam the highest average E a over 8 cavities is 6.5 MV/m. All cavities have been conditioned to 7.0 MV/m. Up to 100% of the energy can transfered to the beam. The overall efficiency reaches 75%. In 1999 the SC cavities will provide U a 2.8 GV. The total SC area is 1600 m 2!

Energy Upgrade The LEP beam energy has followed the progressive installation of new RF cavities and the improved reliability of the RF system : Beam Energy (GeV) 105 100 95 90 85 80 80.5 86 91.5 94.5 96 98 100 GEV? 75 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Up to about 96 GeV the energy gain is obtained by adding new SC cavities. In 1999 LEP will have a nominal U a of 3.03 GV : Type Number E a (MV/m) U a (MV) Cu 48 1.2 120 Nb 16 5.0 136 Nb-Cu 272 6.0 2774 Total 3030 Typically 95% of the voltage is available. To reach energies beyond 96 GeV the gradient must be increased above the design value of 6 MV/m!

Higher gradients Gradient E a (MV/m) 8 7.5 7 6.5 6 5.5 96 98 100 102 Beam Energy (GeV) Various factors limit the gradients of the SC RF system : Gradient differences in nearby cavities due to the distribution of RF power through the waveguides. Between 6 and 7 MV/m strong field emission sets in and becomes the main energy dissipation (and destruction) factor in the cavities : Radiation (many krad/hour!) Cryogenic cooling power limits E a to 7.6 MV/m Field oscillations beam instabilities After a large effort to equalise fields in nearby cavities, each individual cavity was run above 7.0 MV/m without beam.

Ponderomotive Field Oscillations Cavity field instability loop : a surprise for the RF experts! field amplitude oscillations mechanical oscillations driven by an external source or by the field itself ( ponderomotive oscillation) cavity resonance frequency oscillations field oscillation resonance frequency oscillation Gradient Amplitude Time cavity size oscillation RF frequency Frequency The strength of the instability is E 2 a which makes operation with larger gradient even more difficult. Delicate cavity tuning at high currents and gradients

Luminosity Performance A collider performance is judged by its luminosity L : L = ki 2 b 4πe 2 f rev σ x σ y = kn2 b f rev 4πσ x σ y k = number of bunches/beam = 4 N b = number of particles/bunch I b = bunch current = e N b f rev 1mA 5.5 10 11 particles σ x(y) = horizontal/vertical beam size (collision point) From this formula it seems at first sight that L could grow without limits for adequate intensities and sizes... Unfortunately when the mutual interaction of the two beams at the collision point (beam-beam effect) is too strong, the beams blow up and become unstable (tails, backgrounds) and L is limited. For a given beam optics the strength of the lens at the collision point depends on : ξ 1 E N b σ x σ y For constant σ x and σ y : for a fixed ξ N b E L increases with E The beams become stiffer as the energy increases! ξ can reach larger values at higher energies because of the stronger damping. The LEP luminosity is expected to increase significantly with energy!

Current Limits LEP has now two fundamental current limits : RF power limit at 100 GeV : 11 ma of total current for a 34 MW klystron power. Instability limit at 22 GeV (injection) of 1 ma/bunch. The current at injection is limited by the feedback of the beam induced fields in the vacuum chamber surrounding : Bunch 4 "Cavity" Cavity Voltage Bunch 3 Bunch 1 t Bunch 2 Bunch 1 Bunch 2 Discontinuities act like low Q (quality factor) cavities. Induced fields act back on the beam and can cause instabilities. The vacuum chamber should be as smooth as possible! The LEP Cu cavities are the dominant cause of current limitations. The removal of 50% of the cavities for LEP2 has helped to rise the instability threshold current.

Beam Sizes The beam size σ at any position in the ring depends on : The beam emittance ε x The local focussing β σ 2 = βε π ε x ~ Emittance Collision point Straight section ARC cells The beam sizes are modulated by the local focussing σ H (mm) σ V (mm) 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 3 2 1 At the collision point we collide pancakes! : 0 0 200 400 600 s (m) Vertical plane : σ y =3to5µm Horizontal plane : σ x = 150 to 200 µm

Synchrotron Radiation Damping In LEP the e + and e beams are subject to strong damping due to the energy loss from synchrotron radiation and to the continuous longitudinal acceleration : Transverse p p 0 p RF p 1 p γ Longitudinal p The beams have no memory. They forget the past in a few damping times (10 ms at 100 GeV). This property makes beam handling in general simpler than in the case of protons. ε is only conserved in a statistical sense as the mean value over many particles. In plane e + e machines the vertical beam emittance (size) : vanishes for a perfectly aligned machine. depends strongly on the beam steering in a real machine. quadrupoles are aligned vertically to 150 µm inlep.

Horizontal Beam Size The horizontal emittance ε x : is in equilibrium between excitation from synchrotron radiation and damping to due RF acceleration : after photon emission the particle moves towards a smaller radius until it gains back its energy. γ stronger focussing The orbit and the bending radius depend on energy! energy loss weaker focussing x Mechanical Analogy : x depends on the focussing (quadrupole) strength. depends on the number of emitted photons : ε x E 2 σ x E

Limits of the Focussing The focussing cannot be increased at will. For LEP one limit is drawn by the correction for chromatic effects : The focussing of the quadrupoles depends on the particle energy. Sextupole magnets must be used to compensate the chromatic aberrations of the quadrupoles and equalise the average focussing for a sufficiently large range of beam energies. When the strength of the sextupoles is too large, non-linear effects limit the aperture available for the beam. Large amplitude particles become unstable... p/p>0 sextupole p/p=0 quadrupole p/p<0 focal length

Luminosity The luminosity of LEP has been boosted at LEP 200 : Higher currents at injection (removal of Cu cavities) and in collision. Tighter focussing at the collision points. Year L (10 31 cm 2 s 1 ) k I b (µa) LEP 1 2.4 8 320 1996 3.4 4 520 1997 5.0 4 650 1998 9.5 4 740 For 1999 we hope to reach currents above 900 µa per bunch and luminosities above 12.0 10 31 cm 2 s 1. Integrated Luminosity (pb -1 ) 200 150 100 LEP 200 Target : 500 (1/pb) Delivered : 280 (1/pb) 1998 1997 50 1996 0 0 50 100 150 Day

A very Good LEP Day The average efficiency of LEP is 40-50%. Luminosity (10 30 cm -2 s -1 ) I tot (ma) E (GeV) 100 50 0 5 2.5 0 80 60 40 20 0 04:00 12:00 20:00 04:00 12:00 Daytime maximum efficiency of 80%! The typical time between two physics fills is 75 minutes to cycle the magnets, inject the beams, ramp them to top energy and collide them.

Energy Calibration The LEP experiments have measured the shape of the Z resonance : σ had [nb] 35 30 Hadrons 1990 N ν =3 N ν =2 25 1991 1992 N ν =4 20 1993 15 10 5 0 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 s [GeV] To get the best Z mass and width measurements high accuracies are required on the cross sections and on the beam energies. But high accuracy beam energy measurements cannot be made when the beams collide. Its is therefore necessary to be able to track the energies in time! A 6 year effort was necessary to unveil all subtle sources of beam energy variations and to reach the ultimate accuracies : M Z =91.1867 ± 0.0021 GeV Γ Z =2.4939 ± 0.0024 GeV

Transverse Polarisation In a plane storage ring the circulating e + e polarise spontaneously along the direction of the bending field : In the process of synchrotron photon emission there is a large asymmetry in spin (magnetic moment) flip probabilities : P ( ) >> P ( ) the magnetic moments align along the bending field which is breaking the symmetry. The maximum transverse polarisation is 92.4%. At LEP polarisation is a very slow and therefore delicate process : The spin flip probability = P ( )+P ( ) 10 11 Rise time of transverse polarization P : τ p [hours] = 6.3 P [%] 92.4 ( 44 E[GeV] )5 time scale of minutes to hours! The highest observed polarisation level was 55%. The lowest useful polarisation level is 5%. At LEP polarization and high luminosity are incompatible! But polarization has a useful feature : the spins (magnetic moments) precess in the vertical bending field and the precession frequency depends on the beam energy!

Polarisation Measurement at LEP P measurement principle : Collide a laser pulse (λ = 532 nm) with the beam. Flip the circular laser polarisation every other pulse. Measure the vertical profile of scattered Compton γs in a Sistrip/Tungsten calorimeter. P is observed as a vertical shift y of the γ profiles between the 2 polarization states : y 5[µm/%] P Si-W calorimeter Mirror Focussing lense Soleil-Babinet compensator Nd-YAG laser (100 Hz) Detectors Movable absorber (Pb) Synchrotron light monitor γ Laser pulse Expander Optical bench Laser polarimeter Rotating λ/2 plate Mirror Electron detector Backscattered Photons LIR 3 mrad Positron bunch (11 khz) Mirror Focussing mirror for positron measurement 313 m 313 m Electron bunch (11 khz) Positron detector

Resonant Depolarization The spin precession frequency f s is related to the beam energy E : f s /f revolution = ν =E (g e 2)/2 m e c 2 = E 440.6486(1) [MeV] m e and g e 2 are the e mass and anomalous magnetic moment. f s 1.1 MHzforE=44GeV. A horizontal magnetic field b x, modulated at a frequency f B, is applied to the beam. Resonant depolarization occurs when f s =f B determines E!! Accuracy δe/e = 10 5 s s b x Horizontal B field Resonant spin/polarization vector rotation for ν = n + 1/2 (n I) : n 0 P 0.14 mrad P P P b x l (Tm).0002 -.0002 0 1 2 3 Turns

Resonant Depolarization Example of resonant depolarization on the beam. Vertical lines correspond to depolarization attemps. The frequency is swept over a range of 11 to 22 Hz. ν scan.474 to.476.476 to.478.478 to.480.476 to.477.477 to.478.476 to.477 P (%) 40 20 0-20 22:25 22:30 22:35 22:40 22:45 Daytime

Lunatic LEP What links LEP to... the Moon (and the Sun)? It is a story that started in 1991 when small but unexplained variations of the beam energy where first observed...

Earth Tides Tides affect the Oceans and the Earth crust! Earth Rotation Axis ε E = 22o ε M = 5 o R > 0 ε E R < 0 ε M Moon ecliptic The local radius change Rdue to a body of mass M at a distance d and at an angle θ with respect to the zenith : R M d 3(3cos2 θ 1) Sun tides are 50% weaker than Moon tides. At the Equator full (new) Moon tides give R ±50 cm. Around Geneva : Vertical motion of about 25 cm peak-to-peak. LEP Circumference change of ±0.5 mm ( balloon effect )

Circumference Changes and Beam Energy The LEP beam energy is affected because : The length of the actual beam orbit is fixed by the frequency of the RF system : the beam stays in phase! The beam has to move off-centre through the magnets when the circumference changes. The quadrupoles bend the beam back towards the central orbit :this additional bending changes the energy. B QD B QF QD B QF B QD Central Orbit Actual Orbit B = Bending Dipole QF = Focusing Quadrupole QD = Defocusing Quadrupole

Earth Tides An example for the beam energy evolution at full moon compared to a geological model... Beam Energy (MeV) 46475 46470 11 Nov 1992 46465 Tide prediction from strain 22:00 2:00 6:00 10:00 14:00 18:00 22:00 2:00 Daytime Note that sea tides have very different amplitudes and periods because of resonant amplification!

Vagabonding Currents And why do we care about high-speed trains like the TGV? This story goes back to the early times of the European Railways!

Jumping Fields For LEP it all started with some precise B-field measurements in 2 tunnel dipoles in 1995. 16.08.1995, fill 2899 Beam Energy (MeV) 46498 46494 Step Level change 46490 46486 46482 Step Drift 46478 5 MeV 46474 Noisy period Calm period 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 DayTime We expected some changes, but not what you see here : Large short term fluctuations! Correlation with human activity?? The fluctuations affect the beam energy but are too small to influence the luminosity performance of LEP.

Vagabonding Currents What happens? After passing through the train engine, the current should flow back to the power station over the railway tracks. About 20% of the current is KNOWN to use other roads. VAGABOND currents In FRANCE some railway lines use DC currents (history!). DC railways use lower voltages higher currents. Vagabond currents from French railways flow on the LEP vacuum chamber! IP 3 IP 4 LEP IP 5 IP 6 La Versoix Versoix Genthod Lausanne DC railway 1500V AC railway 15000V River Earth current Earth current IP 7 power station IP 2 SPS Bellevue Russin IP 1 IP 8 Vernier Airport Lake Leman Bellegarde Zimeysa Meyrin 1 km St. Jean Cornavin

A Vagabonding Currents Experiment 17.11.1995 Voltage on rails [V] 0-7 Geneve TGV Meyrin Zimeysa Railway Tracks Voltage on beampipe [V] -0.012-0.016-0.02-0.024 LEP Beam Pipe Bending B field [Gauss] 746.36 746.34 746.32 746.30 746.28 LEP NMR 16:50 16:55 Time The understanding of the bending field rise due to trains was a major breakthrough for the energy calibration!

Outlook LEP is now reaching its final phase : The 1999 LEP run will be used to test the RF system at high gradient, push towards 100 GeV but maintain high luminosities. The 2000 LEP run will focus on top energies even if things will break... In terms of accelerator physics the work on the LEP beam energy is standing out as one of the most interesting (and funny!) puzzles that had to be solved! And it was a great success! Work is going on for LEP2... LEP will be shut down in 2000, but some of the equipment will be reused... A few ideas are on the market to take advantage of the SC RF system : A 2 GeV Free Electron Laser A 25 GeV recirculating electron accelerator (ELFE) An electron-proton option for LHC