Difference between revisions of "PPB - April 12, 2023"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
== Agenda == | == Agenda == | ||
* IPAC'23 - Joe, Amy, Reza, Eric - Which day is your poster? Plan to circulate poster and proceedings? | * IPAC'23 - Joe, Amy, Reza, Eric - Which day is your poster? Plan to circulate poster and proceedings? | ||
| − | :* Contribution #1313 submitted to IPAC’23 entitled "Status of Ce+BAF: Polarized Positron Beam Capability at CEBAF 12 GeV" (programme code: MOPL152 | + | :* Contribution #1313 submitted to IPAC’23 entitled "Status of Ce+BAF: Polarized Positron Beam Capability at CEBAF 12 GeV" (programme code: MOPL152, https://www.overleaf.com/read/vqnhmpkrddbh |
| + | |||
* Max - Status of PEPPo-II LDRD proposal | * Max - Status of PEPPo-II LDRD proposal | ||
** Andriy's simulations | ** Andriy's simulations | ||
Revision as of 10:01, 12 April 2023
Meeting Coordinates
- On-site => Wednesdays @ 11am EDT in TL-2236
- Zoom => https://jlab-org.zoomgov.com/j/1616149761?pwd=SDJKY3NhWEtBOUR5MVR5RlY1R1pHdz09&from=addon
Agenda
- IPAC'23 - Joe, Amy, Reza, Eric - Which day is your poster? Plan to circulate poster and proceedings?
- Contribution #1313 submitted to IPAC’23 entitled "Status of Ce+BAF: Polarized Positron Beam Capability at CEBAF 12 GeV" (programme code: MOPL152, https://www.overleaf.com/read/vqnhmpkrddbh
- Max - Status of PEPPo-II LDRD proposal
- Andriy's simulations
- max e+ yield 6e-4 at 1 mm thickness
- emittance cuts do not change this very much despite increase in beam size
- deposited power favors thinner targets (but thermal conductivity may not?)
- Chicane layout and integration into existing space: mostly determined by space constraints
- after 0L02, make use of existing DP can, fast valve, at least 2 quads
- could start at 5D line, gives us BCM and third quad for free, but perhaps not enough space
- to use existing viewer, harp, quads, and FC2: reinject before ITV0L03?
- whole chicane should work with 7 MeV electrons, but east leg must be achromatic on its own
- RF positron capture does not seem viable (cost, power, time, space, everything)
- Rough grocery list
- west leg: 2 DL dipoles (scavenged), 1 valve, 4 correctors, 1+ BPM, 3 QD quads (2 can be easily scavenged). This is assuming achromatic design like UITF, but length is a problem (~ 2.5 m). Can choose to ignore dispersion... There are various design choices but no risks.
- target line: 2 quads, 2 BPMs, 2+ correctors, 1 DP can, 1 valve, target, 2 solenoids, 2 apertures. No risks up to target, then dependent on capture simulation
- east leg: needs lots of simulation to determine what we need; at least 2 special dipoles (maybe CFM), 1 aperture, 1 lens, 1 valve
- 20+ magnet channels necessitates extra trim rack in ISB?
- vacuum pumps TBD but likely not negligible
- Andriy's simulations
- Status from target working group
- Bob - status of SRF toy model
- Any other business...
Upcoming
- April 19 - Joint meeting with PWG
- May 7-13 - IPAC'23 (Joe, Amy, Reza, Eric)
- May 15-19 - LCWS (Andriy, Carlos)