ObjectivesScope Participation Addressing comments on previous proposal ObjectivesScope Design and costing of the rf system for the various Comptonsofthard main linacs including accelerating structures power source and waveguide network ID: 636485
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "WP 3 – Linac rf These are initial thou..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
WP 3 – Linac rf
These are initial thoughts for starting a discussion – nothing is decided!
Objectives/Scope
Participation
Addressing comments on previous proposalSlide2
Objectives/Scope
Design and costing
of the rf system for the various (Compton/soft/hard) main linacs, including accelerating structures, power source and waveguide network.
LLRF
Timing and instrumentation here or in beam dynamics or special components?
Will a module layout be made?
…
Prototyping
Accelerating structures
New generation pulse compressor?
Configure XBox-2 in linac rf unit
…
Testing
Accelerating structures
XBox-2 linac rf unit
…
…Slide3
WP 3 Participation
From previous proposal
STFC
CERN
TriesteSINAPVDLOsloIASAUppsalaAustralian light sourceAnkaraLancaster
Additional?
Eindhoven
GroningenSlide4
Addressing comments
However, the proposal builds on the outcome of the CLIC study and does not sufficiently address the need for a further design study on a similar technology
.
Comment directed at this
work package. We need to emphasize how parameters differ from CLIC.We can emphasise investigation of low cost options – halves, brazing etc.…Probably inevitable for this WP since it provides the main continuity from CLIC. Comment may be addresses by expanded scope (compact undulators etc.) of other WPs.
Also, the proposal does not sufficiently demonstrate the scientific added value of its final design product when compared with the existing X-FEL applications.
Can emphasize cost/MeV but “scientific added value” addressed by general proposal and job of WP1 and 4.
However, the overall and wider impact on the European Research Area, namely synergies with existing ESFRI RIs (e.g.
EuroFEL
) is not sufficiently addressed and demonstrated.
General proposal issue.