1 / 20

“Direct” Injection

“Direct” Injection. D. Douglas, C. Tennant, P. Evtushenko JLab. Acknowledgements. Initial funding provided by ONR Recent work supported by AES under JTO funding

marionu
Download Presentation

“Direct” Injection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. “Direct” Injection D. Douglas, C. Tennant, P. Evtushenko JLab

  2. Acknowledgements • Initial funding provided by ONR • Recent work supported by AES under JTO funding • Initial simulations (sanity check!), useful feedback provided by John Lewellen, discussions with Steve Benson, operational help from Kevin Jordan

  3. linac centerline 0.15 m current sheet or field clamp “Direct” (off-axis) Injection • Rather than merge beams using DC magnetic fields, inject beam into linac at large amplitude and use RF focusing & adiabatic damping to bring orbit into line • Can use reverse process for extraction of energy-recovered beam injected beam 0.075 m accelerated and recovered beams in linac recirculated beam, reinjected for energy recovery

  4. Direct Injection/Extraction cross-sectional view of both passes of beam (first = blue, second = pink) looking down linac from injection to dump

  5. Issues & Solutions • Concerns • Possible emittance dilution from finite phase extent of bunch in RF fields (thanks to Steve Benson for pointing this out…) • Potential for HOM excitation/BBU instability • Approach • Estimates & analysis (emittance, BBU) • Simulation (PARMELA, GPT) • Beam studies on JLab Upgrade Driver

  6. Head-Tail RF-Driven Emittance Dilution • Reviewed head-tail issue • assumed beam was 8 degrees long (6s, head to tail) (~Jlab injected length) • Simulated RF steering of injected beam with simple cavity matrix model Results: • Propagated beam envelopes vary only slightly • Differential steering not dramatic

  7. head/tail (orbit) centroid move ~ ±0.2 mm in position, ±30 microrad in angle. • compare to the beam size – for 5 mm-mrad normalized emittance at 100 MeV, with 10 m beta: • sx ~ sqrt(be)=sqrt(10*5e-6/(100/0.51099906)) ~0.5 mm • sx’ ~sqrt(e/b)=(5e-6/10/(100/0.51099906)) ~50 mrad • with stated assumptions about the bunch length get ~ ± ½ sigma motion – over the full (6s) bunch length Conclusion: emittance dilution may not be too bad; look at more carefully…

  8. Detailed Study • Performed as part of JTO-funded AES merger study • Three part investigation • More careful analytic estimates • Simulations with space charge • Beam study on Jlab IR Upgrade Conclusions: emittance growth very modest; tolerable for IR systems BBU thresholds unaffected; additional power goes into HOM loads Several cm pass-to-pass possible

  9. Results – Theory/Simulation • Estimates  emittance growth negligible for IR FELs • Emittance growth negligible in simulation • Beam quality not degraded • Analysis  BBU threshold independent of injection offset • C. Tennant, JLAB-TN-07-011 • Power into HOMs depends on injection offset GPT simulation of beam size in single-module linac (C. Tennant)

  10. Bunches Traveling Through Linac: Animation Injected on-axis Injected 10 mm off-axis C. Tennant and D. Douglas | July 24, 2008

  11. Machine Study • Measured impact of injection offsets on beam quality in JLab IR Upgrade • Aperture limited to ~1 cm offsets • Able to run CW @ 1 cm  BBU tests possible • Tested at nominal (9 MeV) and low (5 MeV) injection energy Conclusion: No observable impact on beam quality; BBU-related measurements underway

  12. Machine Study: Method • Measure injected emittance (multislit) • Quad scan emittance measurement after linac • On axis & several displacements • Tomography in recirculator • BBU – look at power into HOMs in 7-cell module

  13. Steering • “off-axis” emittance tests: steer off into 1st module, grab at end of module where RF focusing bring (nearly ) to node (no offset downstream) • “BBU” tests: steer off into linac, resteer in recirculator to maintain 2nd pass transmission note path-length/phase/energy effects in arc…

  14. Machine Study: Results • Transversal beam sizes and profiles largely independent of injected orbit over ±1 cm offsets in H and V • Machine drift much higher impact than orbit offset • Initial data analysis of emittance data  emittance unaffected by steering (to resolution of measurement) • Working through error propagation • BBU: • set up CW configuration, acquired initial signals, whereupon machine crashed (refrigerator trip); • lost rest of run to LCW line break before follow-on shifts • will schedule more study time over the summer

  15. Beam Profile At End of Linac x=-10 mm x=0 mm x=+10 mm y=-10 mm y=0 mm y=+10 mm (some scraping) profile measurement by P. Evtushenko & K. Jordan

  16. Transverse Emittance (5 MeV injection) • Measured with 3 methods: • “multislit” in injector • quad scan at end of linac • tomography in recirculatorbackleg • Results generally consistent and roughly match values w/ full energy injection

  17. Emittance Data @ 5 MeV Injection Quad scan: ~ 12-15 mm-mrad Multislit: ~ 13 mm-mrad Multislit courtesy P. Evtushenko Tomography: ~ 10 mm-mrad reconstructed phase space beam spot tomography courtesy C. Tennant

  18. “Direct” Injection @ 5 MeV • Test of “merger-less” merger • Low-loss operation with large (~ cm) injection offsets • Beam behavior ~independent of injection orbit

  19. Conclusions • Direct injection provides possible alternative to traditional merger • Beam quality requirements are key • likely appropriate for IR systems, • may not be quantitatively appropriate for, e.g. shorter wavelength applications • Lower frequency better (i.e. “easier”, more available aperture!) • Few-several cm separations possible • Still need to evaluate emittance data (error analysis) and measure HOM power deposition

More Related