Impedance of current TCP compared to new TCP with button
-
Upload
sean-fuller -
Category
Documents
-
view
17 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Impedance of current TCP compared to new TCP with button
![Page 1: Impedance of current TCP compared to new TCP with button](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/568134e5550346895d9c1722/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Impedance of current TCP compared to new TCP with button
![Page 2: Impedance of current TCP compared to new TCP with button](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/568134e5550346895d9c1722/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
New TCPP• Problem with heating of one TCP in 2012 removed
• Collimation team decided to profit from an option in the existing contract to build one new spare, and proposed to insert BPM in TCP.
OK for impedance team? Need a recommendation
• Context: new TCTP design was not recommended to be extended to other collimators and below a certain gap due to the increase of tapering angle from 11 degrees to 16.5 degrees.
However, primary collimators have a special jaw with a 10-degree-taper close to the beam. maybe not as critical as for other collimators since the modified tapering would be in the shadow of this tapering angle and further away from the beam.
![Page 3: Impedance of current TCP compared to new TCP with button](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/568134e5550346895d9c1722/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Current TCP
Current design New design
1194 mm
600 mm10 degrees11 degrees 68.5 mm
![Page 4: Impedance of current TCP compared to new TCP with button](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/568134e5550346895d9c1722/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
New design (proposal)
![Page 5: Impedance of current TCP compared to new TCP with button](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/568134e5550346895d9c1722/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Jaw for new TCP with buttons in fact smaller first angle 6.34 degrees
compared to 11 degrees for phase 1
![Page 6: Impedance of current TCP compared to new TCP with button](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/568134e5550346895d9c1722/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Reminder: TCTP and TCSP
![Page 7: Impedance of current TCP compared to new TCP with button](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/568134e5550346895d9c1722/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
New design (proposal)
• Similar impedance between current design and new design
![Page 8: Impedance of current TCP compared to new TCP with button](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/568134e5550346895d9c1722/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
New design (proposal)
• Similar impedance between current design and new design
![Page 9: Impedance of current TCP compared to new TCP with button](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/568134e5550346895d9c1722/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Conclusion from BPM tapering
• Could be accepted, no special issue at first sight.
• Now, what about ferrite and RF contacts?
![Page 10: Impedance of current TCP compared to new TCP with button](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/568134e5550346895d9c1722/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Should we close the gap?
![Page 11: Impedance of current TCP compared to new TCP with button](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/568134e5550346895d9c1722/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Arguments• Closing the gap suppresses modes, while ferrites try to damp them (see
LRFF working group conclusions).• Ferrites have an optimal frequency range of operation• Ferrites can heavily suffer from beam induced heating• RF contacts may lose contact (in this design with BPM there are long
contacts that are more challenging)• Serious problems encountered both with ferrites and non-conforming RF
contacts in the machine
Argument not related to impedance• Ferrites can cause outgassing and can break easily• RF contacts can cause UFOs
![Page 12: Impedance of current TCP compared to new TCP with button](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/568134e5550346895d9c1722/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Proposed recommendation
• With the information we have, we would recommend RF contacts and reiterate the RF contacts design if necessary for reliability reasons.
• Is it possible to devise a redundant solution? (e.g. with ferrite behind the RF contacts)
• If possible, we could reinvestigate hybrid options (RF contacts everywhere except where long contacts are needed, and keep the possibility to install a few ferrites).
![Page 13: Impedance of current TCP compared to new TCP with button](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/568134e5550346895d9c1722/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
New idea to collect dust… Nice resonating plates!