A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   X   Y   Z  

Lombardi, A.M.

Paper Title Page
WGB14 Beam Dynamics in Linac4 at CERN 238
 
  • A.M. Lombardi, G. Bellodi, M. Eshraqi, F. Gerigk, J.-B. Lallement, S. Lanzone, E.Zh. Sargsyan
    CERN, Geneva
  • R.D. Duperrier, D. Uriot
    CEA, Gif-sur-Yvette
 
 

Linac4 is a normal conducting H- linac to be built at CERN as a new injector to the PS Booster and later on as a front end of a possible MultiMegaWatt Linac Facility. The layout consists of a H- RF source, a magnetic LEBT, a RFQ (accelerating the beam from 45 keV to 3 MeV), a chopper line, a conventional Drift Tube Linac (from 3 MeV to 50 MeV), a Coupled Cavity Drift Tube Linac (from 50 MeV to 100 MeV) and a pi-mode structure (PIMS, from 100 to 160 MeV), all operating at a frequency of 352 MHz. End-to-end beam dynamics simulations have been carried out to optimise the design and performance of the accelerator. An extensive statistical campaign of transverse error studies was then launched for accessing the required alignment tolerances and steering correction system.

 

slides icon

Slides

 
WGE07 Choice of Frequency, Gradient, and Temperature for a Superconducting Proton Linac 403
 
  • F. Gerigk, O. Brunner, S. Calatroni, E. Ciapala, M. Eshraqi, R. Garoby, A.M. Lombardi, R. Losito, V. Parma, J. Tuckmantel, M. Vretenar, U. Wagner, W. Weingarten
    CERN, Geneva
 
 

The construction of a Superconducting Proton Linac is planned at CERN during the next decade. It is foreseen to be constructed in two stages: a low duty cycle, low-power linac (LPSPL) as an injector for a new 50 GeV synchrotron (PS2) replacing the present PS, which could be upgraded to a high-duty cycle, high-power linac (HPSPL), for the needs of future facility(ies) requiring a multi-MW beam power. In this paper we present the criteria which were used to choose the frequency, gradient, and cryogenic temperature of the SPL. Since these questions are common to other proposed high-power proton linacs, we propose a generalization of the arguments. The various design options are discussed as well as their impact on beam dynamics, cavity performance, power consumption, cryogenics, overall efficiency, and cost of the facility.

 

slides icon

Slides