Nick Walker – GDE meeting Frascati 8.12.05 Discussion and Approval of the BCD Nick Walker ILC-GDE...

Nick Walker – GDE meeting Frascati 8.12.05

Discussion and Approval of the BCD

Nick WalkerILC-GDE

Frascati – 8.12.2005


The Next Two Hours

The road to the BCD brief recap of the process since Snowmass

Review of the White Papers BCD EC decisions for the strawman BCD

what changes we made Review of comments and feedback

some comments we have received what’s missing from the BCD

Formal acceptance of the BCD


Arriving at the BCD

1st ILC Workshop at KEK (11.2004) working groups (WG) formed to begin identifying

contentious design issues 2nd ILC Workshop Snowmass (8.2005)

modified WG continue identifying baseline design and alternatives

newly formed ‘Global Groups’ begin to discuss and catalogue global design issues

2nd Snowmass week: concentrate on the list of ‘Top 40’ critical design questions (Himel List)


Arriving at the BCD (cont)

Comments on Snowmass first week: formal workshop with traditional

parallel working groupssecond-week: entire ILC community not

present, but those that remain make significant progress on identifying baseline.

It was understood that the result of 2nd week deliberations did not necessarily reflect the consensus

view of the entire community.


Arriving at the BCD (cont)August September October November December

2005

WW/GG summaries + broader input

Response to Himel list (40 questions)

all documented ‘recommendations’ publicly available on www (request community feedback)

review by BCD EC

BCD EC publishes‘strawman’ BCD

public review

Frascati GDE meeting

BCD Executive Committee (EC):BarishDugan, Foster, Takasaki (regional directors)Raubenheimer, Yokoya, Walker (acc. design leads)


Arriving at the BCD (cont)August September October November December

2005

WW/GG summaries + broader input

Response to Himel list (40 questions)

all documented ‘recommendations’ publicly available on www (request community feedback)

review by BCD EC

BCD EC publishes‘strawman’ BCD

public review

Frascati GDE meeting

Request for public commentand feedback


BCD EC review process Snowmass documentation comments and feedback from general

community ‘white-paper’ task groups on identified

contentious items Barish ‘mini-MAC’

Burt Richter (SLAC) Katsunobu Oide (KEK) Lenni Rivkin (PSI)


White Papers

Energy upgrade Lijle, Raubenheimer, Toge

IP configuration Bialowons, Markiewicz, Yamamoto

Number of tunnels Delahaye, Hayano, Phinney

Location of positron source Himel, Walker, Yokoya

Tunnel topology Funk, Schulte, Shidara


BCD EC contrary decisions

Energy upgrade – short tunnel adopted option 3 in white paper

Main linac quadrupole spacing 32 quads per quadrupole (24 recommended by WG1)

RTML (bunch compressor) cost minimal system (two-stage compressor) evaluate (cost) single-stage system with two-stage

system as upgrade

rationale: cost


Comment and feedback SLAC ILC group

modulator baseline e+ source location (→ white paper)

Armin Reichold (Oxford) no BCD entry for survey & alignment

Weiren Chou (FNAL) question concerning gradient cost optimum

GG2 conveners (Braun, Ross, Urakawa) recommendation for ~1m linac BPM resolution

(current BCD is ‘less than 10m’) Gudrid Moorgat-Pick

Importance of focus on CME ≤ 500GeV (strong physics case) Concerns on potential 1TeV upgrade driving initial design


Barish ‘Mini-MAC’ high-points

Richter importance of energy flexibility and incremental energy upgrade

physics-driven in light of early LHC results The case for 2 detectors – 2 IRs

Oide luminosity parameters – designing a 5×1034machine Design of RF system to ‘true average gradient performance’ Questions concerning e+ source DR discussions (favours dogbone?)

BCD EC will respond to all comments and questions


The Baseline Machine (500GeV)


1TeV upgrade


The Baseline Machine (500GeV)

not to scale

~30 km

e+ undulator @ 150 GeV (~1.2km)x2R = 955m

E = 5 GeV

RTML ~1.6km

ML ~10km (G = 31.5MV/m)20mr

2mrBDS 5km


BCD Current baseline rather superficial in many places

exception: main linac technology Many inconsistencies

need pedantic review of details Much detail still missing and needs to be supplied

tables of parameters tables of tolerance figures (cartoons) of basic layouts lattices …

First work for AGs over the next couple of months(together with the CCB)


Formal Acceptance of BCD

You got a problem with

that?

BCD EC


Formal Acceptance of BCD

BCD EC

Yeah!Wanna talk

about it?


BCD Formal Acceptance

The Role of Change Control today is not the final word!requests for modifications will now be

formalised via the CCBmany questions and decisions on details still

remain (not currently in the BCD document)CCB will probably be more of an ‘Acquire

Control Board’ in the first few months.

Nick Walker – GDE meeting Frascati 8.12.05 Discussion and Approval of the BCD Nick Walker ILC-GDE...

Documents

Transcript of Nick Walker – GDE meeting Frascati 8.12.05 Discussion and Approval of the BCD Nick Walker ILC-GDE...