CESR Beam-Beam Effects at CESR Mark A. Palmer Cornell University July 14, 2001

download CESR Beam-Beam Effects at CESR Mark A. Palmer Cornell University July 14, 2001

of 13

  • date post

    21-Dec-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    218
  • download

    3

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of CESR Beam-Beam Effects at CESR Mark A. Palmer Cornell University July 14, 2001

  • Slide 1
  • CESR Beam-Beam Effects at CESR Mark A. Palmer Cornell University July 14, 2001
  • Slide 2
  • CESR July 14, 2001 M. A. Palmer Snowmass 20012 CESR Pretzel Operation Single beampipe 9 trains of 4 or 5 bunches Bunches spaced by 14 ns Spacing between 1st bunches in trains: 280 ns, 280 ns, 294 ns,. 1281 RF buckets not divisible by 9 Collisions at a single IP (CLEO) Electrostatic Pretzel Provides horizontal separation in the arcs Vertical electrostatic separators Separates the bunches at the 2nd (unused) IP Crossing Angle at IP: ~2.5 mrad
  • Slide 3
  • CESR July 14, 2001 M. A. Palmer Snowmass 20013 Parasitic Crossings Horizontal separation of > except at 2nd IP Beam-beam tune shift is smallest for : h (s) - 0 ~ /2 Primary limit on train length! Vertical Separation Ibhx2Ibhx2 = I b x 0 2 sin 2 ( h (s)- 0 ) Qh~Qh~ Beam-beam tune shift: Closed orbit: ~ x(s) ~ x 0 h (s) sin( h (s)- 0 )
  • Slide 4
  • CESR July 14, 2001 M. A. Palmer Snowmass 20014 Parasitic Bunch-by-Bunch Effects Strong-strong simulation Tunes: O(1kHz) Spread in horizontal and vertical tunes by bunch Size of this spread has been verified by direct measurement Vertical displacement of bunches at parasitic crossings Distorts vertical closed orbit Occurs at both IPs Bunch at the start (end) of train experiences kick as it leaves (approaches) the IP Additional effects: Variations in chromaticity Variations in angles and beta functions at IP Simulation of long range beam-beam interaction
  • Slide 5
  • CESR July 14, 2001 M. A. Palmer Snowmass 20015 Beam-Beam Tuneshift Beam-beam tune shift Observe v ~ 0.07 in 4-bunch running Decreases for 5-bunch operation although improved net luminosity performance 4-bunch5-bunch
  • Slide 6
  • CESR July 14, 2001 M. A. Palmer Snowmass 20016 Multi-bunch Performance Issues Bunch Current Limits Observations 11mA/bunch possible in 9x1 running See decreasing bunch current limit as increase the number of bunches/train Parasitic crossings limit the maximum bunch current NOT the main beam-beam interaction Installation of superconducting IR (underway now) will significantly improve the first parasitic crossing adjacent to the CLEO IP Tune Spread Simulation indicates a bunch-by-bunch spread of O(1kHz) in both vertical and horizontal Observed tune spread is consistent in size with the simulation Width of working point in the tune plane: ~100 Hz Horizontal ~1 kHz Vertical Currently investigating the use of an RFQ to correct the bunch-dependent tune
  • Slide 7
  • CESR July 14, 2001 M. A. Palmer Snowmass 20017 Bunch-to-Bunch Luminosity Monitor barrel calorimeter bhabha rate in CLEO detector Tracking information provides bunch identification Specific Luminosity: Information integrated over run (~ 1hr) for statistics Car location of bunch in train Observe significant variations in all quantities ~25% degradation in luminosity for worst bunch relative to best L (bunch) dt I(bunch) dt
  • Slide 8
  • CESR July 14, 2001 M. A. Palmer Snowmass 20018 Bunch-to-Bunch Differential Orbits BBI Luminosity Monitor Shake a particular bunch (or bunches) at a fixed frequency Measure the BBI induced amplitude in the opposing bunch Provides much faster response than CLEO luminosity measurement Adjust differential offset between e - and e + bunches at IP ( VCROSING 7 Knob ) Vary betatron phase advance in the vertical separator bump at the 2nd IP Optimize collisions for each car Observations Car-to-car orbit differences at the 0.5 level ( v m) Strong dependence on beam current Consistent with machine operators having to actively tune VCROSING 7 through the course of a run Increasing time decreasing current
  • Slide 9
  • CESR July 14, 2001 M. A. Palmer Snowmass 20019 Bunch Luminosity Optimization Verification of BBI Luminosity Monitor performance relative to the CLEO Luminosity Monitor Optimize BBI signal for a particular car at the beginning of run Integrate luminosity for approximately 1/2 hour and analyzed CLEO bunch luminosity Results appear consistent given strong current dependence of differential orbits
  • Slide 10
  • CESR July 14, 2001 M. A. Palmer Snowmass 200110 Bunch-to-Bunch Orbit Correction DC pedestal of the vertical feedback system Measures orbit of all bunches simultaneously Feedback monitor point located 1.16 wavelengths from IP Assuming no kicks between the monitor and the IP, obtain position at the IP by scaling measured positions with ip fm Complications: Current dependence Bunch-to-bunch X-talk Feedback Kicker Modifications to allow bunch-by-bunch deflections Present system capable of ~0.5 m corrections
  • Slide 11
  • CESR July 14, 2001 M. A. Palmer Snowmass 200111 Bunch-to-Bunch Orbit Correction (2) Preliminary test of feed forward kicking during normal operations Measured relative differential displacements using BBI monitor technique Applied fixed feed forward kick using vertical feedback system Monitor CLEO bunch-by-bunch luminosity for one weekend of running
  • Slide 12
  • CESR July 14, 2001 M. A. Palmer Snowmass 200112 Bunch-to-Bunch Summary Have observed bunch-by-bunch specific luminosity variations at the 15-25% level Direct measurements of differential e + -e - displacement suggests ~0.5 v offsets The luminosity degradation cannot be explained by simple displacement alone (would require 0.8-1.1 v offsets): This suggests that the poor specific luminosity of the worst bunch is probably due to a combination of effects such as blowup of the beam envelope in addition to a simple differential displacement of the electron and positron trajectories Work continues Improvement of measurement techniques and simulation Further modifications to feedback system to increase the available kicking strength for corrections at the 1 v level L = L 0 exp[-( y) 2 /4 y 2 ]
  • Slide 13
  • CESR July 14, 2001 M. A. Palmer Snowmass 200113 Summary Long Range Beam-Beam Interaction at Parasitic Crossings Induces spread in horizontal and vertical tunes of O(1 kHz) Distorts vertical closed orbit of individual bunches Ongoing Efforts Improved monitoring of bunch-by-bunch effects Modifications to vertical feedback system to allow bunch-by-bunch correction of differential (e + -e - ) vertical orbit displacements Radiofrequency quadrupole for bunch-by-bunch tune correction Installation of a superconducting IR which will provide better bunch separation at the parasitic crossing point nearest the CLEO IR Beam-Beam Tuneshift Have observed a beam-beam tuneshift of nearly 0.07 while running with 9 trains of 4 bunches Poorer performance in 9x5 running is consistent with the poor performance of the worst bunches