electron cloud build-up: theory and data
TRANSCRIPT
Electron Cloud Build-Up: Theory and Data
Miguel Furman
LBNL
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 1
LBNL
http://mafurman.lbl.gov
ECLOUD10 Workshop
Cornell, 8-12 Oct, 2010
Summary
• What is the electron-cloud effect (ECE)
• Brief history
• Primary and secondary electrons
• Simulations and data
• Mitigation
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 2
• Conclusions
Acknowledgments: I am grateful for collaboration and discussions over time with: A.
Adelmann, G. Arduini, V. Baglin, S. Berg, M. Blaskiewicz, O. Brüning, Y. H. Cai, J.
Calvey, F. Caspers, C. Celata, R. Cimino, R. Cohen, I. Collins, J. Crittenden, F.-J. Decker,
G. Dugan, N. Eddy, A. Friedman, O. Gröbner, K. Harkay, S. Heifets, N. Hilleret, U. Iriso, J.
M. Jiménez, R. Kirby, I. Kourbanis, G. Lambertson, R. Macek, A. Molvik, K. Ohmi, M.
Palmer, S. Peggs, G. Penn, M. Pivi, C. Prior, A. Rossi, F. Ruggiero, G. Rumolo, D. Sagan,
K. Sonnad, D. Schulte, P. Stoltz, J.-L. Vay, M. Venturini, L. Wang, S. Y. Zhang, X. Zhang,
A. Zholents, F. Zimmermann, R. Zwaska,…
My apologies to the experts – this is a very basic talk
What is the ECE(illustrated with the LHC cartoon by F. Ruggiero)
25 ns25 ns 25 ns25 ns
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 3
• Beam emits synchrotron radiation:
– provides source of photo-electrons
– other sources: beam-gas ionization, stray protons→wall
• Photo-electrons get rattled around the chamber from multibunch passages
—especially for intense positively-charged beams (e+, protons, heavy ions)
• Photoelectrons yield secondary electrons
– yield is determined by the secondary emission yield (SEY) function δ(E):
– characterized by peak value δmax
– e– reflectivity δ(0): determines survival time of e–
•Typical e– densities: ne=1010–1013 m–3 (~a few nC/m)
• Possible consequences:— single-bunch instability
— multibunch instability
— emittance blowup
— gas desorption from chamber walls
— excessive energy deposition on the chamber walls (important for superconducting machines, eg. LHC)
— particle losses, interference with diagnostics,…
• In summary: the ECE is a consequence of the interplay between the beam
Consequences
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 4
• In summary: the ECE is a consequence of the interplay between the beam and the vacuum chamber “rich physics”
— many possible ingredients: bunch intensity, bunch shape, beam loss rate, fill
pattern, photoelectric yield, photon reflectivity, SEY, vacuum pressure, vacuum
chamber size and geometry, …
• The ECE is closely related to the mechanism of photo-amplifiers
* IT IS ALWAYS UNDESIRABLE IN PARTICLE ACCELERATORS
* IT IS A USUALLY A PERFORMANCE-LIMITING PROBLEM
* IT IS CHALLENGING TO PROPERLY QUANTIFY, PREDICT AND EXTRAPOLATE
More...
• NOTE: if conditions are such that the bunch spacing
in time is equal to the traversal time of the electrons
across the chamber, you get a resonance condition
• “beam-induced multipacting” (BIM)
• First observed at ISR mid-70’s
—Usually dramatic consequences: gas desorption
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 5
—Usually dramatic consequences: gas desorption
from the vacuum chamber walls
—Beam is rapidly lost
—Or, trigger beam abort (e.g., at RHIC)
Our goals…
• Identify the relevant variables in each case
• Predict and measure
• If possible, minimize the effect in the
design stages of new machines
• Implement mitigation mechanisms
• Passive
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 6
• Passive
• low-emission coatings
• grooves
• weak B-fields to sweep electrons
• Active
• Adjust the chromaticity
• Feedback systems
• Tailoring bunch patterns
• Typically, both passive and active
• And wait with crossed fingers …
Brief history: BCE and CE
• BCE: effect first seen many years ago in proton storage rings:
— two-stream instabilities (in space-charge compensated coasting beams)
• BINP, mid 60’s: G. I. Budker, V. G. Dudnikov, …
• ISR, early 70’s: E. Keil, B. Zotter, H. G. Hereward,…
• Bevatron (LBL), early 70’s: H. Grunder, G. Lambertson…
— beam-induced multipacting (ISR, mid 70’s, bunched beams)
• O. Gröbner, ICHEA 1977
• multibunch effect; pressure rise instability
— High-intensity instability at PSR (LANL), since mid 80’s
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 7
— High-intensity instability at PSR (LANL), since mid 80’s
• single-long-bunch effect
• Fairly conclusively identified as an electron effect in 1991 (D. Neuffer, E. Colton, R.
Macek et al.)
• CE: started in early 90’s, KEK Photon Factory:
— M. Izawa, Y. Sato and T. Toyomasu, PRL 74, 5044 (1995)
• First observation of instability sensitivity to beam-charge sign in a lepton ring
• Electrons in the chamber were immediately suspected
• Quick decision to add an antechamber to the PEP-II e+ ring chamber
• Caveat: an electron-beam interaction had been previously observed at CESR (J. Rogers et al; “anomalous antidamping”)
ECE at KEK Photon FactoryIzawa, Sato & Toyomasu, PRL 74, 5044 (1995)
• Qualitative difference in coherent spectrum of e+ vs. e– multibunch beams under otherwise identical conditions:
electron beam spectrumpositron beam spectrum
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 8
Fast multibunch instability for e+ beam:
— insensitive to “clearing gap”
— sensitive to bunch spacing
— electrons in the chamber were immediately suspected
— first simulations: K. Ohmi, PRL 75, 1526 (1995); “photoelectron instability” (PEI)
— immediate concern for the B factories’ design
LHC
• 1995-96: concerns that electrons would spoil LHC vacuum (based on ISR experience, O. Gröbner)
• Early 1997: first simulations by F. Zimmermann that included photoelectrons showed a significant ECE
— first proton machine with significant synchrotron radiation:
critical energy of photon spectrum:
intensity: photons/proton/bend
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 9
— main concern: excessive power deposition
— initial estimates: ~a few W/m, vs. 0.5 W/m cryo capacity
— “LHC crash programme” started 1997 by F. Ruggiero
— big simulation effort, along with measurements
— conclusion: main sensitivity is SEY
— current consensus: peak SEY must be <~ 1.1–1.3 to avoid the problem
— we’ll know in a couple of years, when the LHC reaches nominal intensity
Importance of the EC
• ECE has been observed at many other machines:
— PEP-II, KEKB, BEPC, PS, SPS, APS, RHIC, Tevatron, MI, SNS, CESRTA …— diminished performance
and/or— dedicated experiments
• PEP-II and KEKB:
— controlling the EC was essential to achieve and exceed luminosity goals
—Antechamber: lets ~99% of photons escape
— TiN coating at PEP-II: suppresses SEY
—Solenoidal B-fields, B~20 G (at both machines) trap electrons near chamber surface
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 10
—Solenoidal B-fields, B~20 G (at both machines) trap electrons near chamber surface
—Complicated beam fill patterns were used for a while
• PSR: high-current instability, beam loss
− Decision to coat SNS vacuum chamber with TiN
• RHIC: fast vacuum pressure rise instability at high current forces beam dump (in some fill
patterns)
− Not any more (TiZrV coatings suppress SEY)
• Concern for future machines (LHC, ILC DR’s, MI upgrade,…)
• CESRTA is most significant, dedicated, systematic program to understand the ECE in e+e– rings
• Funding started ~3 yrs ago
• Great progress! ECLOUD10 workshop rightfully sited at Cornell
Simulations of the ECE
• Ideally, a single description of the combined beam+EC dynamics
• Such “self-consistent codes” are maturing, but not yet ready for regular, steady
use
• Complicated dynamics, many variables, some more relevant than other
• Slow
• So, there are 2 kinds of codes typically in use:
1. Build-up codes: simulate the development of the EC by the action of a given,
prescribed beam (ECLOUD, POSINST, PEI,...)
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 11
prescribed beam (ECLOUD, POSINST, PEI,...)
• This is the subject of this talk
2. Beam dynamics codes: simulate the dynamics of the beam by te action of a
given, prescribed EC (WARP, CLOUDLAND, PEHTS, HEADTAIL,...)
• Typically, both approaches are good approximations (“1st-order” approximations)
Code “POSINST” features(M. Furman and M. Pivi)
• Electrons are dynamical• represented by macroparticles
• Beam is not dynamical• represented by a prescribed function of time and space
• A simulated photoelectron is generated on the chamber surface• It is then “tracked” (F=ma) under the action of the beam• When it strikes the chamber wall, there is a probabilistic process:
• Absorbed
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 12
• Absorbed• Bounces elastically• Generate secondary electrons
• secondary electron emission: detailed model (M. Furman & M. Pivi,
PRSTAB/v5/i12/e124404 (2003))
• field-free region, dipole field, solenoidal field, others…
• round or elliptical vacuum chamber geometry (with a possible antechamber)
• perfect-conductor BCs (surface charges included)
•EC density reaches saturation, one way or the other
Secondary e– emission:two essential ingredients
E0
EnE2
E1
..
=SEY=no. of emitted electrons per
incident electron (incident energy, angle)
(1)
Note: δ=1 means one e– in,
one e– out
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 13
=emitted electron energy spectrum(2)
incident electron (incident energy, angle)
Secondary emission is an event-by-event simulation:– event=one electron-wall collision– instantaneous generation of n secondaries (or absorption)– detailed phenomenological model for δ(E0,θ0) and dδ/dE
• model parameters obtained from simultaneous fits to bench
measurements for δ and dδ/dE for Cu, St.St., Al and TiN• some parameters not well-known
Two sample measurements of SEY
2.0
1.5
1.0
measured data (R. Kirby) model fit (Furman-Pivi)
Stainless steel sample (data R. Kirby)
2.0
1.5
1.0
fit (Furman-Pivi) measured data
E0tspk=276.812
Copper sample (Hilleret data)
Cu St. steel
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 14
0.5
0.010009008007006005004003002001000
E0 [eV]
E0ts=0
E0tspk=310
dtspk=1.22
powts=1.813
P1epk=0.5
P1einf=0.07
E0epk=0
powe=0.9
E0w=100
P1rinf=0.74
Ecr=40
qr=1
0.5
0.010009008007006005004003002001000
E0 [eV]
E0tspk=276.812
dtspk=1.8848
powts=1.54033
E0ts=0
P1epk=0.496229
P1einf=0.02
E0epk=0
powe=1
E0w=60.8614
P1rinf=0.2
Ecr=0.0409225
qr=0.104045
• caveat: samples not fully conditioned!
(N. Hilleret; R. Kirby)
Sample spectrum: dδδδδ/dEThree main components: elastics, rediffused, true secondaries
St. St. sample, E0=300 eV, normal incidence, (Kirby-King,
NIMPR A469, 1 (2001))
0.08
0.06
Secondary energy spectrum
St. St., E0=300 eV, normal incidence
true secondaries
st. steel sample
δ = 2.04
δe = 6%
δr = 37%
δ =57%
Cu sample
δ = 2.05
δe = 1%
δr = 9%
δ =90%
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 15
0.04
0.02
0.00300250200150100500
Secondary electron energy [eV]
(area[0,50]=1.17)
backscattered
(area[295,305]=0.12)
rediffused
(area[50,295]=0.75)
r
δts =57%
δe+δr =43%
– Hilleret’s group CERN: Baglin et al, CERN-LHC-PR 472.
– Other measurements: Cimino and Collins, 2003
δts =90%
δe+δr =10%
Simulated movie, CESRTAfield-free region, 10 bunch passages
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 16
Simulation vs. experiment at CESRTA (G. Dugan)1.885 GeV tune shift data-central density 0.75 mA/bunch
POSINST simulation- Al chamber, peak SE energy 310 eV, SEY=1.8
Technique: measure “bunch tune shift”
roughly ∝ EC density
10-bunch train,
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 17
10-bunch train, followed by a “witness bunch”
Simulated movie, PSRfield-free region, 2 bunch passages
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 18
PSR: benchmark code POSINST
• Bunch length >> ∆t
— a portion the EC phase space is in resonance with the “bounce frequency”
— “trailing edge multipacting” (Macek; Blaskiewicz, Danilov, Alexandrov,…)
ED42Y electron detector signal
8µC/pulse beam
435 µA/cm2
electron signal
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 19
435 µA/cm2
measured (R. Macek) simulated (M. Pivi)
(δmax=2.05)
Simulated movie, LHCexternal dipole bending field
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 20
High-density regions form where Ew(x)=Emax
called “stripes” (F. Zimmermann)
Controlling the ECE
• Modify the vacuum chamber geometry (suppress both photoemission and SEY)
— add an antechamber (PEP-II: let photons escape)
— add transverse grooves (eg., LHC beam screen: suppress photoemission by ~x2)
— add longitudinal grooves (SLAC tests): suppress effective SEY (~x2)
• Modify the vacuum chamber electronic properties: low-SEY coatings
— TiN (PEP-II, SNS)
— TiZrV (RHIC and LHC RT regions – requires activation), …
— Amorphous carbon coating (under tests at CERN)
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 21
— Amorphous carbon coating (under tests at CERN)
— Note: most coatings require activation to become effective
— Clearing electrodes
• Use solenoidal B-fields (~20 G)— confines electrons near the chamber, away from the beam
• used extensively at KEKB and PEP-II
• significant improvement in performance
• Tailor the bunch fill pattern— add strategic gaps in the train
• Use feedback systems to actively counteract instabilities that arise
Conditioning effect of SEY
• The SEY usually dominates the EC build-up
• But, the SEY naturally decreases with electron bombardment
• “self-conditioning effect”
• Clearly seen in many cases
• Q: 1) is it fast enough? (Y)
Copper SEY (CERN)
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 22
• 2) does it go far enough? (N?)
• Copper sample:
• note δ(0)≈1
— consequences of “fish hook” not fully
explored
— But known to be unfavorable
because δ(0) controls the
dissipation rate of the EC
— Evidence from PSR that δmax➘, but
� δ(0) remains ∼ constant
(R. Cimino and I. Collins, proc.
ASTEC2003, Daresbury Jan. 03)
Conclusions
• The ECE is an ubiquitous phenomenon for intense beams
— spans broad range of charged-particle machines
• It is important inasmuch as it limits the machine performance
— Especially for high-intensity future machines
• It is interesting, as it involves in an essential way various areas of physics:
— Surface geometry and surface electronics
— Beam intensity and particle distribution
— Beam energy
— Residual vacuum pressure
— Certain magnetic features of the storage ring
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 23
— Certain magnetic features of the storage ring
• Simulation codes are getting better and better in their detailed modeling capabilities
• Enormous progress has been made since 1994
— With a disproportionate credit due to CESRTA over the past ~3 years
— Better and more refined e– detection mechanisms
— Simulation codes are getting better and better calibrated against measurements
— Phenomelogical “rules of thumb” are appearing that tell you when the ECE is serious• But not when it’s weak and safe
• But mysteries remain...
— Not a year has gone by without a couple of big surprises
— I encourage workshop speakers to emphasize the flies in the ointment
In closing...
Thanks to our Cornell colleagues, especially to Mark
Palmer, for organizing this workshop
I look forward to lively and productive discussions
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 24
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
Backup material
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 25
Secondary e– emission: effective SEY
if δeff>1: Ne~exp(t/τ)• EC density grows exponentially until space-charge limit
• close to beam neutralization level
if δeff<1: Ne~exp(–t/τ)
• walls are net absorber of electrons
• EC density saturates when no. of emitted primaries=no. of absorbed e–
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 26
• EC density saturates when no. of emitted primaries=no. of absorbed e
• exponential decay is seen upon beam extraction
What is δeff?
• δeff is a complicated function of Nb, bunch fill pattern, bunch shape, vacuum
chamber material, chamber geometry, …
• δeff is not known a priori
Conditioning effects: beam scrubbing
• PSR “prompt” e– signal (BIM) is subject to conditioning:
—signal is stronger for st.st. than for TiN
—sensitive to location and N
—signal does not saturate as N increases up to ~8x1013
—conditioning: down by factor ~5 in sector 4 after few weeks (low current)
• PSR “swept” e– signal is not:
—signal saturates beyond N~5x1013
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 27
—signal saturates beyond N~5x1013
— electron decay time τ ≈ 200 ns, independent of:
• N
• location
• conditioning state
• st. st. or TiN
• Tentative conclusion: beam scrubbing conditions δmax but leaves δ(0) unchanged
BIM in the APS: benchmark code POSINST
120
100
80
60
aver. electron-wall current [nA/cm2]
APS, positron beamDetector Current vs. Bunch Spacing
(10 bunches, 2 mA/bunch in all cases; measurements courtesy K. Harkay, ANL)
region of BIM
sB=d2/(reN), b<d<a
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 28
40
20
0
aver. electron-wall current [nA/cm
35302520151050
bunch spacing sB [RF buckets]
measured simulated
e+ beam, 10-bunch train, field-free region
Simulated
(code POSINST)
measured
(Furman, Pivi, Harkay,
Rosenberg, PAC01)
Lowering the SEY
• Low-SEY coatings
- TiN (used in PEP-II, SNS; tested at PSR)
- TiZrV: studied at CERN
• fully suppresses multipacting after activation (SPS tests)
• used in RHIC warm sections (“works better than solenoids”)
• will be used in LHC warm straights
• drawback: cannot be used in cold regions (needs activation ~160-200 C)
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 29
• SEY decreases with e– bombardment: “scrubbing”
– self-conditioning effect
• SPS ECE studies:
– ~5 years of dedicated EC studies with dedicated instrumentation
– scrubbing very efficient; favorable effects seen in:
• vacuum pressure
• in-situ SEY measurements
• electron flux at wall
Results for e– line density vs. t (one turn)
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 30
MI: sample time-averaged EC density
2
1
0
y [cm]
1.2x107
1.0
0.8
0.6
cm**-3
MI_1p3_6_spc1-K
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 31
-1
-2
y [cm]
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
x [cm]
0.4
0.2
0.0
Conclusions for FNAL MI
• There seems to be a critical value Nb~1.25x1011 at which the EC grows exponentially and reaches saturation (≈beam neutralization level) within ~110 ns
— this assumes a specific model for the SEY, and δmax=1.3
— also assumes a drift section of the MI
• What to do next:
— vary δmax; find Nb as a function of δmax
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 32
max b max
— look at different models of SEY
— look at magnetic sections (dipoles, quads)
— vary sb (?)
— study effects of EC on beam
• this is outside the scope of POSINST
• For a full 3D self-consistent simulation, see seminar by Jean-Luc Vay next week here (almost ready for quantitative predictions)
MI: preliminary results for a drift section
• Choose E=8 GeV (f=1.2% of beam lost during ∆tinj=0.4 s):
(assumes ηeff=100 e/p, from PSR experience)
σ
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 33
• Assume T=305 K, P=20 nTorr, σi=2 Mbarns:
• Assume δmax=1.3, model “K” (from fits to old St.St. SLAC
data; see PRSTAB/v5/i12/e124404 (2003))
Calculated azimuthal distribution of photons(from G. Dugan)
P=0
P=0.5
P=-0.5
P=±1
P=0.25
P=-0.75 P=-0.25
P=0.75
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 34
x-axis: P= scaled perimeter, from -1 to 1
P=-0.5P=-0.75 P=-0.25
vac. chamber cross section
EC formation: “seed” or “primary” electrons
Three main “primary electron” processes:
• photoelectrons
• residual gas ionization
• beam-particle losses
Instead of use = no. of e– generated per proton per meter of beam traversal (units m–1)
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 35
P = vac. pressure, T = temperature
ηeff = eff. e– yield per proton-wall collision
n’pl = beam particle loss rate per unit length per beam particle
Nb = bunch population
Yeff = eff. quantum efficiency (e– yield per γ)
σi = ioniz. cross-section per beam particle
LHC EC power deposition
(F. Zimmermann - ECLOUD’02)
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 36
Sensitive to model for secondary emission (peak SEY, spectrum, fraction of elastics/rediffused/true secondaries)
EC dissipation after beam extractionsimplest analysis
N
N’2b
• beam has been extracted, or gap between bunches• field-free region, or constant B field • assume monoenergetic blob of electrons• neglect space-charge forces
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 37
If not monoenergetic and not along a straight line, then
where K=f(angles)≈1.1–1.2
simulations show that this formula
works to within ~20%
and τ = dissipation time
EC dissipation in PSR after beam extraction
• “Sweeping e– detector”
—measures electrons in the
bulk
—τ ≈ 200 ns
—⇒ δeff ≈ 0.5 if E = 2–4 eV
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 38
—⇒ δeff ≈ 0.5 if E = 2–4 eV
—since δeff ≈ δ(0), you infer δ(0)
—well supported by
simulations (see next
slide)(measurements by Macek and Browman)
(PAC03, paper RPPB035)
EC dissipation after beam extraction:PSR simulation
10
100
1000
line density [nC/m]
EC line density beam line density
PSRdissip3
aver. neutralization level
PSR simulationfield-free section, N=5e13
p loss rate=4e-6/m, yield=100 e/pNB: primary e– rate
is 100 x nominal
input SEY:
δ = 1.7
EC line density vs. time (field-free region)
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 39
0.01
0.1
1
line density [nC/m]
2.0x10-6
1.81.61.41.21.00.80.60.40.20.0
time [s]
exponential decay(slope=2e-07 s)
δmax = 1.7
δ(0) = 0.4slope = 200 ns
MI: beam neutralization factor vs. Nb
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 40
Sensitivity to relative ratios of δδδδe, δδδδr and δδδδts: case of LHC
800
600
aver. power deposition [W/m]
LHC arc dipole simulation: electron-cloud power deposition
photoelectrons: outer edge only
n'e(γ)=6.3e-4 e/m, δmax=2.05
beam signal (arb. units)
Copper
Stainless steel
Copper, true sec. only
power deposition vs. time (LHC arc dipole)
800
600δe+δr = 43%
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 41
400
200
0
aver. power deposition [W/m]
1.4x10-6
1.21.00.80.60.40.20.0
time_sm [s]
Copper, true sec. only
Aver. power deposition in 0.5<t<1.2 µs
copper: 11 W/m
st. st.: 152 W/m
copper, TS only: 2.1 W/m.
δe+δr = 10%
400
200
01.060x10
-6
1.0501.0401.0301.020
time_sm [s]
δe+δr = 0
EC in the LHC (contd.)
• Later in 1997 it became apparent, both from CERN and LBNL simulations, that the main concern for the LHC is the energy deposition by the electrons on the vacuum chamber screen
• LHC is first storage ring ever in which this is a potential problem
• Initial estimates for heat load were ~several W/m
—Exceeds the available cooling capacity of the LHC cryogenic system.
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 42
—Exceeds the available cooling capacity of the LHC cryogenic system.
—Cryogenic system was designed before the effect was discovered
—At face value, would have to cut Nb or increase sb by factors of ~a few to accommodate heat load
⇒ operational limitation!
• This was the motivation of the “Electron-Cloud Crash Program” at CERN
• And of the LARP involvement in LHC EC research
More history: EC in the LHC
• 1995-96: concerns from the EC on LHC vacuum by O. Gröbner based on ISR experience
• Early 1997: first simulations by F. Zimmermann that included photoelectrons showed a significant ECE; concern about electron energy deposition
• LHC is the 1st proton machine in which synchrotron radiation is significant:
critical energy of photon spectrum: at 7 TeV
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 43
—The ECE in the LHC is dominated by secondary electron emission, not by the photoelectrons
critical energy of photon spectrum:
intensity: photons/proton/bend
at 7 TeV
⇒ lots of photoelectrons!
EC formation: beam-induced multipacting (BIM)
• train of short bunches, each of charge Q=NZe, separated by sb
• ∆t = e– chamber traversal time
e−
e−
e−
e−
+ + + + + +
γ or p
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 44
• ∆t = e chamber traversal time
• b = chamber radius (or half-height if rectangular)
The parameter defines 3 regimes:
If G = 1 and δeff > 1, EC can grow dramatically (O. Gröbner, ISR; 1977)
PSR Layout
PSR Layout
Skew Quad
Merging Dipole Stripper Foil
C Magnets
Bump Magnets
Matching SectionH- Beam
Final Bend
Extraction Line
H-/H0 Dump Line
ED02ED92
ROED1
Circumference = 90m
Beam energy = 798 MeV
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 45
11/17/00 RJM_ICANS-XV.ppt4
ED42
ED52
ED92Beam energy = 798 MeV
Revolution frequency =2.8 MHz
Bunch length ~ 250 ns (~63 m)
Accumulation time ~ 750 ms
~2000 turns
PSR instability
BPM ∆∆∆∆V signal
CM42 (4.2 µµµµC)(Circulating Beam
(R. Macek)
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 46
(200 µs/div)
Growth time ~ 75 µµµµs or ~200 turns
High frequency ~ 70 – 200 MHz
Controlled primarily by rf buncher
voltage
(Circulating BeamCurrent)
SPS spectrum(K. Cornelis, ECLOUD02)
M. Furman - ECLOUD10 p. 47