Report from the - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Report from theCLIC-ILC General Issues Working Group

Mike Harrison

PAC Meeting, Prague

Nov 14/15,

2011Slide2

Eckhard Elsen – DESYMike Harrison - BNL

Philippe

LeBrun – CERNKen Peach – OxfordDaniel Schulte – CERNKaoru Yokoya - KEKWe report to the ILCSC and the CLIC Collaboration Board. Status updates to this group.The first report was issued last January, the second will be released this January, and the final report by 2012 year end.The first report was presented to the PAC at the last meeting in Taipei.

The General Issues Working GroupSlide3

SitingWe looked at the technical issues regarding

siting

and there is not much of consequence, but what there is involves CLIC: the footprint is a bit more complicated due to the drive beam system, vibration specs could rule out some sites but not most, cultural noise would suggest a deep site which must be laser straight.Industrial Procurement: experience from the LHCComponent numbers for SRF larger than the LHC – big enough for automation ?LHC was CERN based thus subject to CERN procurement practices – ILC world basedHow to value in-kind contributions when the same component costs vary globally

Should have the “right” level of technology in the technical designs to allow

industrial production where possible.Single or multiple sourcing ? LHC generally chose multiple. Single sourcing was either a success or a failure.Intermediate component supply: critical components were CERN supplied but this complicates logisticsBuild-to-print for “CERN owned “ technology otherwise functional and interface specs

Interim Report #2Slide4

Industrial Procurement: experience from the LHC (continued)Risk should be taken by the most knowledgeable party

Operating costs (10 years) were taken into account e.g. efficient

cryo plantsThe industrial “jungle”: quality drift, supply chain failure, organizational changes, strikes, bankruptcies ….. Bound to happen on a long project.Decision Process: how to integrate LHC results into the linear collider programHiggs or no Higgs ?SUSY or no SUSY ?

Standard model or beyond the standard model ?

We will have the results from the present LHC run then nothing new until 2015/16. We need some form of community review in 2013 to arrive at an LC consensus.An Assessment of the Technical Working GroupsNot subject to much day-to-day management from the project

Largely autonomous in regard to technical topics & organization

While cross-over activities certainly exist and there are common goals in the test facilities, most work is still project specificValue added comes from comparing results, critiquing designs, developing concepts …How should the WG’s evolve ?

Interim Report #2Slide5

Final report

Issues part of project implementation plans

Sitingcriteria and constraintsCLIC specificitiesPreparation of technical procurementConsiderations of mass producing hi-tech components

QA, industrial follow-up

Decision point(s) for the LCPoints of comparison between the two approachesPhysics reachMaximum energy: in relation to first LHC results

Energy staging and upgradeability

Luminosity (incl energy spread & background) & polarizationLower-energy operation, energy fine scansAccelerator technologyExplore (& compare ?) strength/weaknesses of the two approachesComparative reliabilityFuture technology development?Cost & power

estimates

Topical joint

WGsFollow-up of existing onesPossible new topics:RF power sourcesSurface cleanliness in an industrial productionBeam instrumentationConclusions

2

nd Interim Report

2

nd Interim Report

Final ReportSlide6

Physics reach

Maximum energy: in relation to first LHC results

Can we say anything here ? Can we frame the discussion ?Energy staging and upgradeabilityMake longer is the zeroth order solution. BDS issues for 500 Gev -> 3 Tev

Luminosity (incl energy spread & background) &

polarisation

20 mrad v’s 14 mrad

Lower-energy operation, energy fine scans

Final

report

(since this work has not really started the next few slides are largely my own personal prejudices )Slide7

Accelerator technology

Explore (& compare ?) strength/weaknesses of the two approaches

Here we have asked the technical working groups for their opinions on what they consider to be the critical issues in their design areas. The GI WG will evaluate their responses as well as our own opinions.Comparative reliabilityI suspect that only an analysis at the – better, worse, same – level is sensible at this point.

Not much information on ILC, none on CLIC, at the system level.

Future technology development ?ILC : higher gradients, 2.6 GHz (in the context of energy upgrades), positron production & polarisationCLIC: higher gradients but the baseline itself is a challenge in the near term

Both: value engineering

Final reportSlide8

Cost & power estimates

Will this be the ‘official’

cost comparison ?We will probably pick up the cost v’s energy recommendation from our first report i.e. base cost (Zero energy collider) + cost per GevCLIC costs in April, ILC costs in ?What is the relative accuracy/maturity of the cost estimates ?

A linear collider is single pass thus wall plug power (for a given technology) is determined to first order by the beam energy and current.

The RDR estimated 214 MW (82 base + 132) for 500 Gev. Nick recently estimated an additional 100 MW for a 1 Tev ILC with a somewhat more energy efficient parameter set.J-P D gave a CLIC

estimate in Eugene

of ~650 MW for a 3 Tev machine. Is it reasonable to propose a facility that is this power hungry ? If not then is the CoM energy set not by physics or technology but energy consumption.There seems to be no large difference in power consumption between either approachCan the energy efficiency be improved for SRF or 2-beam LC designs ?

Final report