Tagged: LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • richardmitnick 11:39 am on April 18, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration, , XFEL   

    From LC: “From metal sheet to particle accelerator (Part 1of 3)” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    14 April 2016
    Ricarda Laasch

    1
    Cavity production at Zanon in Italy. Image: DESY, Heiner Müller-Elsner

    In September 2015, the 50th accelerator module for the X-ray free-electron laser European XFEL was tested at DESY. One hundred accelerator modules are needed for the two-kilometre-long electron accelerator of the X-ray free-electron laser. Each module consists of eight cavities, the actual accelerating structures. This is the first of a three-part series (first published in DESY inForm) about how these technological masterpieces are manufactured. Part 1 is about cavities; their production has now been completed.

    Two companies have been commissioned with the cavity production: Research Instruments (RI) in Germany and Zanon in Italy. “This is the first time we have ordered cavities virtually ready for operation from industry,” emphasises Axel Matheisen who together with Waldemar Singer leads a team of engineers and technicians at DESY supervising these firms. In the past, industry had only carried out the mechanical production steps. “For that reason, our greatest concern was whether we would manage to convey the necessary knowledge in a way that the companies are able to produce complete cavities,” says Mattheisen. The tested cavities prove that this knowledge transfer worked perfectly.

    At the beginning of the long production process, there is a square niobium sheet with an edge length of 26.5 centimetres and a thickness of 2.8 millimetres. For the construction of the accelerator, the purity of 14 700 sheets is tested at DESY before being dispatched to the two production firms. There, the sheets are deep-drawn to so-called half cells which gives them the appropriate shape for further processing. A stamp is used to obtain the required hollow pattern … the cavity.

    Subsequently, 18 half cells are welded together to form one cavity. Since niobium oxidises very easily, this cannot be done with a flame. Instead, the half cells are welded together with an electron beam in a vacuum chamber. The advantage: this procedure is very clean. For this reason, the nine-cell cavity must be protected from new contamination during further processing.

    For accelerator operation, the quality of the cavity’s inner surface is extremely important. It must not only be hyper clean but also exceptionally smooth. “In the past, the cavities were delivered to us and we did the rest. This went quite well with ten or occasionally with 30 cavities per year. But it was clear that this would not be possible with some 100 cavities per year,” Mattheisen says. For the construction of the European XFEL, the firms had to learn to carry out the surface treatment according to the “DESY recipe” and to work in a nearly dust-free cleanroom. “This was completely new for them and therefore, communication was ex- tremely important,” Mattheisen points out. The most important steps in this process are pickling, baking, tuning, dressing and rinsing.

    For pickling, various different acid mixtures are lled into the cavity. The acid reacts with the metal surface of the cavity and removes processing residues and polishes the surface. The acids’ mixture ratio and the extent of the pickling procedure have been optimised during many years of research at DESY. Baking follows pickling: the cavity is heated at 800 degrees centigrade for several hours in a humidity-free vacuum environment. During this treatment, tensions in the metal originating from shaping and welding are released and the ne crystal structures of niobium are newly arranged.

    After getting out of the oven, the cavity is tuned. In order to accelerate particles during operation, electromagnetic fields are induced to oscillate in the cavity and, eventually, the oscillation will turn into resonance. For this aim, however, the shape of each cavity cell must be exactly tuned to the accelerator frequency of 1.3 gigahertz. In the process of tuning, the resonance frequency is measured and when it diverges from the desired frequency, the cavity must be retuned. For this purpose, the cavity shells are pressed and pushed accordingly. Slight shape alterations can signi cantly improve the resonance.

    The next step is dressing: the cavity is welded into its helium tank. Liquid helium cools down the cavity in operation to minus 271 degrees centigrade to generate superconductivity and remove heat. Subsequently, a total of four antennae are to be mounted onto the cavity. One of it feeds the electromagnetic field into the cavity, the others recover it at the opposite end. “Doing this kind of mounting in a cleanroom is not the average, not even for industry,” says Mattheisen. “It is not usual work to set bolts and nuts in a cleanroom; it requires practice and, above all, patience since all procedures must be carried out slowly.”

    The production is completed with rinsing: the inner surface of the cavity is sprayed off for some hours with high pressure ultrapure water of 100 bar. Now, the cavity with a vacuum inside leaves the cleanroom. Packed in a special case, it is shipped to DESY by lorry. However, the cavity is not yet ready for installation into a European XFEL module. It will first have to demonstrate its qualities.

    See the full article here .

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    The Linear Collider Collaboration is an organisation that brings the two most likely candidates, the Compact Linear Collider Study (CLIC) and the International Liner Collider (ILC), together under one roof. Headed by former LHC Project Manager Lyn Evans, it strives to coordinate the research and development work that is being done for accelerators and detectors around the world and to take the project linear collider to the next step: a decision that it will be built, and where.

    Some 2000 scientists – particle physicists, accelerator physicists, engineers – are involved in the ILC or in CLIC, and often in both projects. They work on state-of-the-art detector technologies, new acceleration techniques, the civil engineering aspect of building a straight tunnel of at least 30 kilometres in length, a reliable cost estimate and many more aspects that projects of this scale require. The Linear Collider Collaboration ensures that synergies between the two friendly competitors are used to the maximum.

    Linear Collider Colaboration Banner

     
  • richardmitnick 4:47 pm on November 12, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration, ,   

    From LC Newsline: “Future accelerator scientists’ fulfilling twelve days” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    12 November 2015
    Rika Takahashi

    1
    The poster of the 9th International Accelerator School

    Counting down to the ski season, still off-season Whistler, in British Columbia, Canada, was an ideal place for student to concentrate on the study for the 9th International Accelerator School for Linear Colliders.

    This school was organised by the Linear Collider Collaboration and the ICFA Beam Dynamics Panel, and hosted by Canadian national laboratory TRIUMF. It is a continuation of the series of schools that began in Hayama, Japan, in 2006. Three continents take turns in providing the venue and close to 500 students have been trained in Erice, Italy in 2007, Oak Brook, United States in 2008, Beijing, China in 2009, Villars-sur-Ollon, Switzerland in 2010, Pacific Grove, United States in 2011, Indore, India in 2012 and Antalya, Turkey in 2013.

    The school was offered to graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and junior researchers from around the world, and the organising committee received much more applications than they were able to take, so they made a selection to invite the best students. “The goal of this school is try to prepare the ‘young army’ to build and operate this machine of the future because ILC is a big global project for the 21st century,” said Weiren Chou of Fermilab, one of the organising committee members. “You say “the old soldiers never die”, but they will fade away. So before they do, we need a new generation to grow”.

    The topics for the school were TeV-scale linear colliders including the ILC, CLIC and other advanced accelerators. An important change of this year’s school from previous ones was that it also included the topic free-electron lasers (FEL) because the FEL is a natural extension for applications of the ILC/CLIC technology.

    “I tried to not make it too technical,” said Masao Kuriki from Hiroshima University, who gave an overview talk about the ILC, and also a lecture about the particle source. “I was impressed by some of the insightful questions from the students, in the area of generation of polarised electrons and positrons or correcting chromatic aberration. Also, we had an animated discussion on how the ILC can search for dark matter.”

    There was one more difference for this school from the previous ones. Because a Linear Collider Workshop was held in the same place at the same time, there was a joint plenary where the students could participate in the conference. The session entitled “LC Future directions” lasted one whole afternoon. The first half of the session was about the status of the linear collider study, and the other about future technologies such as laser plasma or plasma wakefield acceleration, and its possible application for the linear colliders. “A joint plenary with student was a good opportunity to drive students’ interests by presenting the future possibilities and associated issues,” said Kuriki.

    Students were given homework assignments and a final examination, and students with excellent results were given a “Student Award,” in the banquet held the last day. This is the list of awarded students*: Jim Ogren, Uppsala University, Sweden, Fernando Maldonado Millan, University of Victoria, Canada, Weiwei Tan, Peking University, China, Yasuhiro Fuwa, Kyoto University, Japan, Jorge Giner Navarro, Instituto mixto del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) University of València, Michele Bertuccia, INFN, Italy, Robin Rajamaki, CERN/Aalto University, Finland, Douglas Story, TRIUMF/University of Victoria, Canada, Dario Pellegrini, CERN/École Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland, Liu Yang, TRIUMF, Canada, Lianmin Zheng, Tsinghua University, China, and Juergen Pfingstner, University of Oslo, Norway.

    “Students form the early schools have already become leaders or are playing leading roles in this field, so I am so happy to see so many young people who decided on and want work on this project. I really hope that Japanese government will give a green sign for these excellent future scientists,” said Chou.

    [*I believe it is noteworthy that not a single student from a US lab or university is on this list.]

    See the full article here .

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    The Linear Collider Collaboration is an organisation that brings the two most likely candidates, the Compact Linear Collider Study (CLIC) and the International Liner Collider (ILC), together under one roof. Headed by former LHC Project Manager Lyn Evans, it strives to coordinate the research and development work that is being done for accelerators and detectors around the world and to take the project linear collider to the next step: a decision that it will be built, and where.

    Some 2000 scientists – particle physicists, accelerator physicists, engineers – are involved in the ILC or in CLIC, and often in both projects. They work on state-of-the-art detector technologies, new acceleration techniques, the civil engineering aspect of building a straight tunnel of at least 30 kilometres in length, a reliable cost estimate and many more aspects that projects of this scale require. The Linear Collider Collaboration ensures that synergies between the two friendly competitors are used to the maximum.

    Linear Collider Colaboration Banner

     
  • richardmitnick 3:38 pm on October 29, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration, ,   

    From LC Newsline: “Future colliders” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    Directors Corner
    29 October 2015
    Harry Weerts
    Harry Weerts is the Americas Regional Director for the Linear Collider Collaboration

    1
    Artist’s impression of the proposed CEPC Image: IHEP

    This LC newsline is a rather personal one for me and inspired by my experiences over the last decade and especially the last year or so. I have been and am a member of the Linear Collider Collaboration (LCC), have worked on ILC for the last ten years, have contributed to the CLIC Physics & Detector CDR and was one of its editors, am a member of the International Advisory Committee for the CEPC in China and last but not least have a day job, where I am responsible for the Physical Sciences and Engineering directorate at Argonne National Laboratory, which forces me to look at our field of particle physics in a broader physics perspective (still only physics). The opinions expressed here are my own, they are flavoured by my background and not everybody will agree with them.

    Over the last few years the regions of the world have produced strategic roadmaps for Europe and the United States. There is no official roadmap for Asia, but there are ambitions in Japan to build the ILC and the Chinese particle physics community is putting forward a proposal for a circular e+e- collider with an energy of about 240GeV in the center of mass, possibly followed by a proton-proton collider in the same tunnel. CERN has formed a study to look at Future Circular Colliders (FCC), one of which is a ~100Tev proton-proton collider. For the sake of simplicity I will call the possible Chinese proton-proton (CppC) machine also a “~100Tev class machine”, although its energy will most likely be less, but still several times above the current LHC energy of 14TeV. I will call such proton-proton colliders, which for now are FCC and CppC, “LHCx5” machines.

    The strategic roadmaps in Europe and the US can be divided into two parts: one is the part that can and will be realised from HEP budgets available over the next 10 years or so and include the upgrades to the LHC and the LBNF/DUNE at Fermilab in the US. There are agreements either existing or being put in place to execute this programme, and there is close collaboration between CERN and Fermilab to do this. So this will happen. The other part of all strategic roadmaps (now including EU, US and Japan) encourage the realisation of the ILC in Japan as the next energy frontier machine, and as a natural follow-up to the LHC. However, there is one crucial difference: the realisation of the ILC is not in any of the HEP budgets in the world and substantial additional funds will be needed to construct it. The ILC has also been and is a global effort and supposed to be a global machine. However, what emerged in the last few years is that Japan will be the host, if it happens, and that the world expects Japan to make the first step. It is global, but hosted locally in Japan.

    This is currently a point of contention in the sense that the world is waiting for Japan to make the first move and Japan is waiting for the world to say: “Let’s do it”. This is slightly different for the other potential energy frontier machines, which, although global, originate from a local host. One can write many pages of differences between the possible future energy frontier machines, but for my arguments I will keep it rather simple: they are all virtual, they are at different stages of readiness for construction, they all will require a host country (if you count Europe as a country) to make a decision whether to go forward. The host “country” will have to make a large investment and then high-level negotiations ( not involving particle physicists) will be required with other partner countries about contributions and many other items.

    It is this last part which is very different and has never been done for a truly global particle physics machine. All the potential future colliders (ILC, CLIC, CEPC, LHCx5) will have to go through this high-level political process, not involving particle physicists. The budgets required for all these machines make this necessary. Even though the ILC is still being considered by the Japanese government, there have been visits by members of the Japanese Diet to Washington to pave the way for future working groups between the Japanese Diet and US Congress and between the Department of Energy and MEXT. Concretely the Advanced Accelerator Association Promoting Science and Technology AAA in Japan has teamed up with the Hudson Institute in the US to identify ways to insert the ILC discussions into discussions about technology exchange between the two countries. This approach is necessary because of size of the budget involved and it is not something that we in HEP are familiar with. Basically the Hudson Institute have told us: “ We will take it from here and will contact you when we need you.”

    It is the cost of future colliders that drives all this additional work,. Although budget estimates for all potential future colliders exist, they are not always public and in some cases (like China) the argument is made that it is cheaper. I have found it useful to use as a measure of relative cost in a country or region, not a currency, but facilities that are constructed for other sciences, e.g. a light source. On paper, a light source is substantially cheaper to build in China than the US for example. Advanced countries seem willing to build a light source on their own, so it is interesting to express future colliders in units of light sources (LS). In the US a light source costs about $1B. When the ILC cost estimate was converted to US accounting in 2008, it came out to about 15 LS. It was immediately concluded that this was not possible and it ended any discussion about such a machine in the US. Several years before the P5 roadmap in the US, LBNE tried to suggest a project which was about 1.5 LS, and the feedback was: reduce to less than 1 LS. Looking at the ILC and for example CEPC, they are about 10-15 LS in each of those countries. Looking at it that way, indicates the size of the budget that HEP is asking for a future facility compared to other sciences and a light source has users from many different fields, not just physics.

    In summary a future potential energy frontier collider for HEP will require a strong science case (which I have assumed here exists), a strong local host, be global and because of the size of the budget will require high-level political negotiations between countries, where “our future collider” is a small piece of a larger agreement or framework between countries. Decisions may be made for reasons that have nothing to do with science.

    See the full article here .

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    The Linear Collider Collaboration is an organisation that brings the two most likely candidates, the Compact Linear Collider Study (CLIC) and the International Liner Collider (ILC), together under one roof. Headed by former LHC Project Manager Lyn Evans, it strives to coordinate the research and development work that is being done for accelerators and detectors around the world and to take the project linear collider to the next step: a decision that it will be built, and where.

    Some 2000 scientists – particle physicists, accelerator physicists, engineers – are involved in the ILC or in CLIC, and often in both projects. They work on state-of-the-art detector technologies, new acceleration techniques, the civil engineering aspect of building a straight tunnel of at least 30 kilometres in length, a reliable cost estimate and many more aspects that projects of this scale require. The Linear Collider Collaboration ensures that synergies between the two friendly competitors are used to the maximum.

    Linear Collider Colaboration Banner

     
  • richardmitnick 1:15 pm on October 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration, SLAC LSLS-II, Superconducting cavities   

    From LC Newsline: “Superconducting cavities are a ‘hot’ topic” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    15 October 2015
    Ricarda Laasch

    3
    A panel discussion during SRF15. Image: Sebastian Aderhold

    Superconducting cavities are an important part of the design for many international accelerator projects. These particle-accelerating structures are used for many different accelerators from those that produce brilliant light for investigating the microcosm of atoms and molecules to those that let elementary particles collide with each other to understand the beginning of the universe.

    LHC 15-m cryodipole
    LHC 15-m cryodipole

    The ILC is also designed for SRF technology.

    FNAL SRF
    FNAL SRF Cavity

    Roughly 16 000 cavities are needed to accelerate electrons and positrons to high energies to study not only the Higgs boson but also other fundamental mechanisms of our cosmos. “I am sure there will be quite a lot of relevant results and discussions relevant for the ILC this year,” said Nick Walker, Global Coordinator for ILC Accelerator Design & Integration based at the German lab DESY, just before the conference.

    Right now the field of SRF cavities is as active as it has ever been, not only because of the many accelerator projects around the world which have very high demands on the performance of the difference cavities, but also because the step from ‘home made’ cavities to actual ready-to-use industrial mass-produced cavities is happening right now. In the field of cavities the scientists have always worked closely with industrial partners to build the basic structures but the most important steps have always been done ‘in house’ – at the laboratories by the scientists. These steps have now been transferred to different companies with support of many laboratories to mass-produce cavities in an off-the-shelf fashion.

    This transition within the field of cavities clearly reflects itself in the schedule of the conference. In the first two days many overview talks concerning important accelerator projects were given. Status Quo and further steps of the projects were introduced and discussed. Questions concerning design goals and used technologies were always part of the discussions. Each project learns from the projects before. The European XFEL – the first project to use mass produced ready-to-go cavities – is nearly at the end of the cavity production phase and everyone wants to see how the performance and the quality have developed along the production. With two companies producing a total of 800 cavities the statistical analysis of the cavity and the accelerator modules performance was important to many attendees. “It was the first time we have ever done this and we were worried about the performance and how it would work out,” explains Detlef Reschke, who is responsible for review and analysis of the results at the European XFEL project. “Now the results tell us that worrying was not needed.” This is good news for the ILC since the European XFEL uses a similar cavity design and 800 cavities can give a clear indication of how well the production went. Many posters within the poster session on different afternoons illustrated the steps within this project.

    European XFEL Test module
    European XFEL test module

    Following the European XFEL, the Linac Coherent Light Source II (LCLS-II), at SLAC in the US, is the next big project in line and it goes even a step further. A newly developed method to improve the cavities’ quality factor – which means less heat loss for each cavity – should now go into mass production. This method, which brings nitrogen atoms into the metal surface of the cavity, has been under investigation by many different laboratories. It lowers the resistance of the cavity and therefore its heat losses. A complete explanation for this effect is still under discussion within the community and was also ongoing at the conference, but the effect has been proven stable enough. Using the basic cavity recipe from the European XFEL which is now established at the companies and adding the new steps of nitrogen doping should bring LCLS-II, an extension of the already existing light source at SLAC, to life. “With three labs coordinating the R&D effort for the needed new technique the development of the doping process went fast and smooth, so that we have already been able to transfer this new technique to industry,” said Marc Ross, project manager for LCLS-II and former project manager of the Global Design Effort for the ILC. “And this proves that we can further develop and improve this technology fast enough for the ILC.”

    SLAC LCLSII
    SLAC LCLS-II

    Aside from this leap into mass producing ready-to-go cavities there is still a lot R&D ongoing in the field. The following two days were filled with talks from young researchers and established members of this scientific community to present their newest insights concerning SRF cavities. Magnetic flux trapping and expulsion and improving the cooldown procedures were some of the hot topics at the conference. Extremely low temperatures are needed to make the superconductivity work, therefore the cavities need to be cooled down from room temperature to 2 Kelvin (-271 degrees Celsius). This cooling process can have an effect on the cavity performance and scientists are trying to find the best way to cool the structures to achieve the best possible result.

    Hot topics took centre stage after the poster sessions as podium discussions concerning most interesting areas of research in the field right now. Apart from cooldown procedures for cavities, cryomodules and whole accelerators there were discussions about possible new materials and how to retain the performance of the cavities after the assembly into a cryomodules. Both topics are important for the future of the field. Different materials offer different properties which could lower heat losses and improve accelerating power. Different approaches are being made to find a new and possible better material than pure niobium from which cavities for the European XFEL and LCLS-II are made.

    The assembly into cryomodules is one important step to get from a cavity towards a fully functioning particle accelerator, and it is not an easy procedure. Cleanliness and accuracy are key to building good modules which preserve the high quality of the cavities. Here CEA Saclay, France, has taken the step to hand this work over to an industrial partner and to prove that these complex cryomodules can be built within a tight schedule and in high numbers for accelerator projects like the ILC. “The modules were built by our industrial partner but we own the infrastructure and all the tooling. So after the production phase of the European XFEL CEA would be ready to build cryomodules for the ILC with the already well trained staff from our industrial partner,” said Olivier Napoly, Deputy Leader of the Accelerator Department at CEA and project leader of the module production for European XFEL at CEA.

    The week-long conference had many participants from many countries all over the world and the general progress in the field of SRF cavities was shown. Also many vendors and companies involved in the production of cavities were at the conference as exhibitors as well as participants in the conferences poster sessions to show their techniques and production progress to the community. This close partnership between industry and laboratories is another key for accelerator projects like LCLS-II. “We’ll support the two companies to be able to use the nitrogen doping technique on the cavities for LCLS-II,” said Ari Palczewski, Jefferson Lab staff scientist involved in the knowledge transfer for nitrogen doping towards the companies. For the ILC all these activities are important steps to further improve and qualify this accelerating technology and its production process.

    See the full article here .

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    The Linear Collider Collaboration is an organisation that brings the two most likely candidates, the Compact Linear Collider Study (CLIC) and the International Liner Collider (ILC), together under one roof. Headed by former LHC Project Manager Lyn Evans, it strives to coordinate the research and development work that is being done for accelerators and detectors around the world and to take the project linear collider to the next step: a decision that it will be built, and where.

    Some 2000 scientists – particle physicists, accelerator physicists, engineers – are involved in the ILC or in CLIC, and often in both projects. They work on state-of-the-art detector technologies, new acceleration techniques, the civil engineering aspect of building a straight tunnel of at least 30 kilometres in length, a reliable cost estimate and many more aspects that projects of this scale require. The Linear Collider Collaboration ensures that synergies between the two friendly competitors are used to the maximum.

    Linear Collider Colaboration Banner

     
  • richardmitnick 8:38 am on July 31, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration, ,   

    From LC Newsline: “Learn from the experience of others – Tohoku University campus planning group visits DESY” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    23 July 2015
    Ricarda Laasch

    Temp 1
    Tohoku University campus planning group at DESY (from left: Tokiko Onuki, Nick Walker, Eisaku Nashiyama, and Akihiko Nagasaka)

    German national laboratory Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron (DESY) welcomed three Japanese visitors on 30 June, 2015, who asked to be introduced to DESY – its campus and organizational structure as an example of a research institute. The group is studying the size and needs of a possible International Linear Collider (ILC) campus in Tohoku.

    ILC schematic
    Possible ILC

    Tokiko Onuki, Campus Designer of Tohoku University, together with Eisaku Nashiyama, General Manager of the Industry and Economy Group from Tohoku Economic Federation and also the Executive Director of the Tohoku ILC Promotion Council, and Akihiko Nagasaka, ILC Promotion Division of the Mayor’s Office at Ichinoseki City, were welcomed at DESY by Manfred Fleischer, Deputy Director of the High Energy Physics Department of DESY, and Nick Walker, Global Coordinator for ILC Accelerator Design & Integration.

    A program alternating between tours around the campus and presentations by different departments of DESY was the day filling schedule which Fleischer and his colleagues presented to the Japanese visitors. The program started with a historical overview of DESY and the present status of the institute as a national laboratory with many international projects. The broad variety of topics encompassed: civil architecture and planning of the campus, needed infrastructure for a laboratory, transportation along the DESY sites (mainly during HERA times), introduction of foreign researcher’s families to life in Germany and the DESY’s social support systems, possible schools and education for researcher’s children, and regional impact of DESY in many facets of life.

    Onuki was interested in different models for office space and their functionality within the research community. The ILC will need offices for resident staff, long-term guest-scientists and also short-term visitors. At DESY different models for the different groups are used which were presented to the visitors. Further needs concerning seminar rooms and other equipment was addressed and also well received by the visitors.
    Of course an institute for the ILC needs more than office buildings. A tour through workshops and a look inside the cavity testing facility AMTF was part of the visit at DESY. “Such a facility like AMTF or even bigger will be needed for the building phase of the ILC.” was a statement from Nick Walker during the tour through AMTF. The ILC will use the same accelerating technology but it has 20 times as many accelerating structures than the European XFEL (which already needed a mass production). Here additional space and planning for the necessary mass production of accelerating structures is needed for the ILC campus. Walker could give many important insights about the ongoing European XFEL production as stepping stones for the ILC.

    Campus transportation of equipment and personnel will also be an issue for the possible site of the 30km long ILC with all buildings and needed infrastructure. “A good number of bicycles are in use at DESY but they also need maintenance and parking space.” was one of the first answers which were given by Fleischer. DESY solved some of the issues of transportation on campus site by using bicycles, installing a car pool (including transport vans) and during the time of the use of the HERA accelerator a bus shuttle was provided towards the experimental halls. Onuki and their colleagues were interested in all those solutions and of course how these things are used and received within DESY staff.

    Steffi Killough, Leader of the International Office at DESY, was giving helpful insights about social support which would be needed for foreign researchers and their families. DESY supports the guest-scientists starting with the visa application until the end of their stay in the country. Especially the tax system, insurances and other legal matters need explanations and advising. Also the education system for children is an important topic to visiting scientists and support for the integration into those systems needs to be provided. This issue is also very important for the ILC and its possible host nation Japan. “What would you like to provide if you had more resources?” was one of the questions from Onuki and her colleagues. Here the answer was very clear to Killough: more time which can be dedicated to provide support for each individual, also to provide more language support to address a greater variety of visitors in their native language, and to organize more social events.

    At the end of the day many other topics had been addressed like: scientific outreach, visitor numbers to DESY on open house days and the cooperation with the University of Hamburg and other Universities. “A key factor in the 50 year history of DESY was a close collaboration between Hamburg University and DESY, which has grown over the years.” is one of the statements of Frank Lehner towards the visitors from Tohoku University.
    Also the regional impact of DESY towards Hamburg was detailed and discussed in all areas like economy and education. The possibility for spin-off companies, regional investment for the needed infrastructure, training of skilled personnel in a variety of professions which are needed to provide the support system of a laboratory and growth for the regional economy were also further topics of the discussions.

    The Campus Planning Group from Tohoku University was given as many answers as possible from DESY in all possible areas to assist with the future ILC campus plans.

    See the full article here.

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    The Linear Collider Collaboration is an organisation that brings the two most likely candidates, the Compact Linear Collider Study (CLIC) and the International Liner Collider (ILC), together under one roof. Headed by former LHC Project Manager Lyn Evans, it strives to coordinate the research and development work that is being done for accelerators and detectors around the world and to take the project linear collider to the next step: a decision that it will be built, and where.

    Some 2000 scientists – particle physicists, accelerator physicists, engineers – are involved in the ILC or in CLIC, and often in both projects. They work on state-of-the-art detector technologies, new acceleration techniques, the civil engineering aspect of building a straight tunnel of at least 30 kilometres in length, a reliable cost estimate and many more aspects that projects of this scale require. The Linear Collider Collaboration ensures that synergies between the two friendly competitors are used to the maximum.

    Linear Collider Colaboration Banner

     
  • richardmitnick 11:31 am on July 10, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration   

    From LC Newsline: “ILC the discovery machine” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    9 July 2015

    1
    Hitoshi Yamamoto, Associate Director for Physics and Detectors in the Linear Collider Collaboration

    1
    At the ILC, collision will be very simple while at the LHC two composite particles makes complicated events.

    It is often said that the ILC is a precision machine. One should note, however, that the ILC is actually a discovery machine that can find new phenomena and new particles LHC at CERN would not be able to discover. This capability is made possible by a few unique features of the ILC.

    First, at the ILC, two elementary particles – namely, electron and positron, are collided while at the LHC two composite particles, protons, are collided. A proton is made of two up quarks and one down quark bound together by many gluons, and when they collide, many unwanted debris are produced. When a Higgs particle is produced at the LHC, the decay products of the Higgs particle is only a small fraction of all particles one observes in the collision. On the other hand at the ILC, most of the particles, or in many cases all the particles, one see come from a Higgs particle. The cleanliness is overwhelming. The situation has been likened to the difference between a collision of two raspberry pies and that of two raspberries. This gives the ILC a capability to find small signals of new particles or new phenomena.

    Another advantage of the ILC is the control of the colliding electron and positron. The polarization of the colliding elementary particles can be specified as well as their energies. By controlling the polarizations, specific types of interactions can be turned on and off, thereby enabling to see small new effects coming from new physics. Sometimes, interactions that overwhelm a signal of new physics could be removed by the control of polarization leading to discovery.

    The LHC is indeed a powerful machine with an impressive energy reach. A new run with energy upgrade has just begun and we are extremely excited about the prospect of new discoveries to come. Such a discovery may provide the ILC with a fantastic opportunity if the new particle is within the energy reach of the ILC. On the other hand, however, one should not forget that the new particle might be discovered first by the ILC. Since we are talking about new particles, it is difficult to predict what will happen. One could, however, pay attention to the Tevatron at Fermilab that can be considered as a younger brother of the LHC and shares many features of the LHC. The Tevatron has a glorious list of discoveries including that of the top quark. For the Higgs particle, however, it could not find a clear signal even though some twenty thousand Higgs particles were created. As we all know, the discovery of the Higgs particle had to wait for the LHC where about half a million Higgs particles were produced. At the ILC, only a handful of generated Higgs particles would do. It may be that a new particle are already produced at the LHC that as to wait for the ILC to be discovered.

    Once a new particle is detected at the ILC, its nature can be fully elucidated by the ILC. Precision certainly is a great advantage of the ILC. For the measurements of interactions of the Higgs particles and other particles, indeed, the ILC is statistically equivalent to several tens of the ultimate LHCs running simultaneously. The ILC, however, is much more than a precision machine, it is in fact a tremendous discovery machine!

    See the full article here.

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    The Linear Collider Collaboration is an organisation that brings the two most likely candidates, the Compact Linear Collider Study (CLIC) and the International Liner Collider (ILC), together under one roof. Headed by former LHC Project Manager Lyn Evans, it strives to coordinate the research and development work that is being done for accelerators and detectors around the world and to take the project linear collider to the next step: a decision that it will be built, and where.

    Some 2000 scientists – particle physicists, accelerator physicists, engineers – are involved in the ILC or in CLIC, and often in both projects. They work on state-of-the-art detector technologies, new acceleration techniques, the civil engineering aspect of building a straight tunnel of at least 30 kilometres in length, a reliable cost estimate and many more aspects that projects of this scale require. The Linear Collider Collaboration ensures that synergies between the two friendly competitors are used to the maximum.

    Linear Collider Colaboration Banner

     
  • richardmitnick 12:42 pm on June 11, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration   

    From LC Newsline: “The European XFEL – helping pave the way for the ILC” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    11 June 2015
    Ricarda Laasch

    European XFEL Campus
    Future Eurpoean XFEL

    The European XFEL at DESY, Germany, will be a brilliant light source for a broad range of fundamental research in all areas of science – but it is also the first great mass production of the so-called TESLA technology. This particle accelerating technology was developed by DESY together with its collaborators within the TESLA project and has now been transferred into industrial mass production to build the European XFEL. This is the first time that accelerator modules based on the superconducting radio frequency TESLA technology, are completely mass-produced in industry. And even though such a challenging industrial production is already needed for the European XFEL, this is not the end of the line. After all, the European XFEL’s big brother is the International Linear Collider, and they share the TESLA technology. The ILC community is thus watching the construction of the European XFEL very closely.

    “The ILC’s mission is to provide an accelerator and the infrastructure for experiments that can explore the structure of matter and the universe with unprecedented precision.” This statement by Brian Foster, European Director in the LCC, encompasses the three key goals of the ILC: Measuring the newly discovered Higgs boson with high precision, understanding the properties of the top quark, and searching for new particles beyond known physics. The Higgs boson was discovered at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in 2012, and with it the last part of an established theory could be finally proven. The top quark, on the other hand, may not be a new discovery but the particle itself still raises a lot of questions; and finally there is always the physics beyond what is known – or in this case the search for new particles.

    The big question now is if a machine like the ILC is actually needed given that we already have the LHC. The world community answers with a clear ‘Yes, it is.’. To show the importance for the community hundreds of physicists explain why they need the ILC in short videos – see here to find out more about the #mylinearcollider campaign. The ILC and LHC will be like a pan and a pot. It is possible to cook a meal with just one of the two, but for a greater variety of meals having both is essential. So the community is convinced that both machines are needed to fully understand the Higgs boson and other particles our universe has.

    A machine such as the ILC needs a great global effort to be brought into existence. To make this happen every possible source of information and knowledge is needed. This is where the European XFEL enters the stage. In the scope of the ILC, the European XFEL acts as a prototype for technical design, project planning and construction phase. Both machines basically use the same TESLA technology for acceleration of the particles.

    At DESY Nick Walker, a physicist and Global Coordinator for ILC Accelerator Design & Integration, has his eyes on the XFEL production. In his 20 years working for DESY at the machine group he has mostly worked on the TESLA project and its successor, the ILC. Right now he is projecting the numbers learnt from the European XFEL production into the ILC frame. For example he compares the performance of the superconducting TESLA cavities, the power drivers for the particles in the accelerator: “The overall approach to module production, from niobium sheets to accelerator modules, for the ILC is fundamentally taken from XFEL,” he says. The European XFEL will have 800 such superconducting cavities in 100 accelerator modules, while the ILC will have 16 000 cavities in about 2000 accelerator modules. The cavity and module production for the European XFEL was the first real industrial production for these specific parts of an accelerator and of course the ILC will handle it nearly the same way. “The cavities are a great success. Although we are a tad shy of the ILC goals they confirm the choice for the used recipe,” Walker stresses. And with 80 percent of the cavities reaching a gradient (the accelerating strength) of 33 megavolts/metre(MV/m) at the current status of the XFEL production together with an ILC goal of 90 percent at 35MV/m, this is a potential achievable goal for the ILC.

    The cavity production is not the only influence the ILC can carry over to their project. Many other aspects of the project are very helpful for the further planning and designing of the whole ILC project. “The ILC cost estimates are effectively projections of the known XFEL costs, which puts ILC on solid ground,” is another benefit of the European XFEL which Walker emphasises. For an international project of this scope not all contributions from participants are financial. Some ‘in-kind contributions’ have to be handled differently. For these in-kind contributions the European XFEL has some well-functioning examples: the Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Science (IF-PAN) sent a team of 27 skilled physicists, engineers and software engineers to DESY to provide needed manpower for the whole project duration. This team runs the important cavity and module test facility AMTF at DESY. Another example of those contributions is the accelerator module assembly which takes place in Saclay, near Paris, France. The modules are finished on the grounds of the Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives (CEA) and then sent to Germany for testing and installation into the accelerator. Here not only industrial manpower, but also laboratory space was offered and used in the production. The LAL laboratory in Orsay, France, has a similar story: they are responsible for testing and conditioning the so-called high-power couplers – another key component of the technology. Those two are just examples for the different kinds of contributions from many laboratories to the European XFEL construction (for further contributions see here). For the ILC these contributions could be scattered all around the globe – which means good planning and identifying possible problems is the key to success.

    The European XFEL has started the first industrial mass production of cavities and accelerator modules. For all the scientists involved in this project this is a completely new situation. And as with everything new in life one has to learn how to do it well. And even this learning curve along the production and construction of the European XFEL will be beneficial for the ILC: the community can learn where more attention is needed or further development of parts or other design plans could be included. All these details give the ILC an opportunity which no other project this size has.

    Even after the production phase during the installation, commissioning and finally operation of the European XFEL, the ILC community will still be there and watching intensely. Here the European XFEL will give the ILC community invaluable experience for all the needed steps to build a machine in this global scale with the same set of technology behind it. The installation of the ILC will by nearly 20 times larger, and this is a real challenge on manpower, logistics and planning. So it is important to learn everything possible from the European XFEL which will help the ILC to be prepared.

    Of course, Nick Walker and his colleagues in the ILC community will keep a close eye on the European XFEL project: “No doubt lessons will be learnt here [at XFEL] that will influence the ILC design.”

    See the full article here.

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    The Linear Collider Collaboration is an organisation that brings the two most likely candidates, the Compact Linear Collider Study (CLIC) and the International Liner Collider (ILC), together under one roof. Headed by former LHC Project Manager Lyn Evans, it strives to coordinate the research and development work that is being done for accelerators and detectors around the world and to take the project linear collider to the next step: a decision that it will be built, and where.

    Some 2000 scientists – particle physicists, accelerator physicists, engineers – are involved in the ILC or in CLIC, and often in both projects. They work on state-of-the-art detector technologies, new acceleration techniques, the civil engineering aspect of building a straight tunnel of at least 30 kilometres in length, a reliable cost estimate and many more aspects that projects of this scale require. The Linear Collider Collaboration ensures that synergies between the two friendly competitors are used to the maximum.

    Linear Collider Colaboration Banner

     
  • richardmitnick 6:11 am on June 5, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration, , , ,   

    From LC Newsline: “Future large colliders in Asia – a personal perspective” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    28 May 2015
    Prof. Jie Gao, Institute of High Energy Physics, CAS, China

    1
    Qinghuada is the potential site for the Chinese collider.

    With the discovery of the Higgs particle at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in July 2012, after more than 50 years of searching, particle physics has finally entered the era of the Higgs, and the door for human beings to understand the unknown part of the Universe is wide open!

    CERN LHC Map
    CERN LHC Grand Tunnel
    CERN LHC particles
    LHC at CERN

    The Standard Model theory of particle physics is now gloriously complete: all particles that it has predicted have been found through experimental discovery with particle colliders.

    2
    Standard Model of Particle Physics. The diagram shows the elementary particles of the Standard Model (the Higgs boson, the three generations of quarks and leptons, and the gauge bosons), including their names, masses, spins, charges, chiralities, and interactions with the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. It also depicts the crucial role of the Higgs boson in electroweak symmetry breaking, and shows how the properties of the various particles differ in the (high-energy) symmetric phase (top) and the (low-energy) broken-symmetry phase (bottom).

    Now is the time to nail it down with precision and to match to new theories to cover the unknown components of the Universe, such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy, through Higgs with its field stretched out to the whole Universe space. The Higgs couples not only to known fundamental particles in the Standard Model but might also couple to unknown parts of the Universe. To understand the whole Universe, with 5% of known Standard Model particles, 27% of Dark Matter and 68% Dark Energy, on the basis of the fundamental principles, the key of keys is to understand the 125-GeV Higgs with great precision. In fact, this task has great importance in science in terms of the fundamental understanding the Universe as a whole, including its beginning, its current status and its evolution. It is in this sense that studying the Higgs with great precision becomes one of the top subjects of big science.

    Different from a hundreds years ago, big science requires big instruments, a big scientific community, and big collaborations, especially in particle physics, which is becoming one of the precious cultures in human beings’ scientific activities. Different from a hundreds years ago, big science requires big investment in terms of both finance and human resources. However, just like a hundred years ago, big science rewards human beings in all aspects of life and activities on this planet and in space, such as electricity, nuclear power, and the World Wide Web as a (big!) byproduct out of big science research activity. And who knows, maybe (in at least philosophical point of view) human beings might one day be able to collide Dark Matter with the Higgs to release energy just like what we have done to hit atomic nucleus with neutrons to release nuclear energy.

    Concerning precise Higgs studies and beyond, the International Linear Collider (ILC), baptised by the International Committee of Future Accelerators (ICFA) in 2004, is one of such future big instruments. It is an electron-positron linear collider based on superconducting linear accelerator technology, with a potential of exploring centre-of-mass energies up to 1 TeV. In 2013, the ILC team finished its Technical Design Report (TDR), and Japan is considering to become its hosting country.

    In September 2012, right after the Higgs was found at the LHC, Chinese scientists proposed a circular electron-positron collider in China at 240 GeV centre of mass for Higgs studies with two detectors situated in a very long tunnel at least twice the size of the LHC at CERN. It could later be used to host a proton-proton collider well beyond LHC energy potential to reach a new energy frontier.

    From 12 to 14 June 2013, the 464th Fragrant Hill Meeting was held in Beijing about the strategy of Chinese high energy physics development after Higgs discovery, and the following consensuses were reached: 1) support ILC and participate to ILC construction with in-kind contributions, and request R&D fund from Chinese government; 2) as the next collider after BEPCII in China, a circular electron-positron Higgs factory(CEPC) and a Super proton-proton Collier (SppC) afterwards in the same tunnel is an important option and a historical opportunity, and corresponding R&D is needed.

    BEPII Beijing Electron Positron Collider
    BEPII Beijing Electron Positron Collider interior
    BEPII

    The vision of the 464th Fragrant Hill Meeting consensuses is that firstly, ILC is the right machine to be built globally in the world with its centre- of-mass energy potential up to 1 TeV, and China will be one of its important participants and contributors, and secondly, China should contribute not only through ILC collaboration and participation, but also make contributions to precise Higgs measurement through CEPC jointly with ILC for a period of time as a combined instrument with three detectors taking data during ILC and CEPC operation to ensure the excellent joint precision, and thirdly, shifts from CEPC operation to SppC construction and operation to explore physics in energy frontier as long term contribution.

    In fact, ILC and CEPC are complementary, and the complementarity between ILC and CEPC manifests itself not only through more detectors to increase joint measurement precision, but also through their energy region running scenarios. The ILC and CEPC are planning starting times that are almost the same. The ILC runs only at 500 and 350 GeV in the first five years, while CEPC during this time is running at 240GeV. After 5 to 7 years running, CEPC will start its shift to SppC, while the ILC continues a 20-year programme running at 500GeV, with possible upgrades to 1TeV and beyond.

    Finally, the fact that Japan and China, both Asian countries, having strong willingness to contribute to the high-energy physics community and science in general with world participation, one for hosting ILC and another for CEPC, is really excellent, it responds well to the fact that we have entered the era of the Higgs, and ILC and CEPC are a needed united big instrument to have excellent joint precision for Higgs study and beyond.

    See the full article here.

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    The Linear Collider Collaboration is an organisation that brings the two most likely candidates, the Compact Linear Collider Study (CLIC) and the International Liner Collider (ILC), together under one roof. Headed by former LHC Project Manager Lyn Evans, it strives to coordinate the research and development work that is being done for accelerators and detectors around the world and to take the project linear collider to the next step: a decision that it will be built, and where.

    Some 2000 scientists – particle physicists, accelerator physicists, engineers – are involved in the ILC or in CLIC, and often in both projects. They work on state-of-the-art detector technologies, new acceleration techniques, the civil engineering aspect of building a straight tunnel of at least 30 kilometres in length, a reliable cost estimate and many more aspects that projects of this scale require. The Linear Collider Collaboration ensures that synergies between the two friendly competitors are used to the maximum.

    Linear Collider Colaboration Banner

     
  • richardmitnick 2:29 pm on March 19, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration, ,   

    From LC Newsline: “Updating the physics case for the ILC” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    19 March 2015

    3
    Hitoshi Yamamoto

    Director’s Corner

    1

    The physics case of the ILC has been studied intensively for many years, culminating in the physics volume of the Technical Design Report (TDR).

    ILC schematic
    ILC

    It was followed by efforts to compare various machines such as the European Strategy studies and the Snowmass studies. Still, the scientific and political environments surrounding the ILC keep changing. On the scientific front, the LHC has found the Higgs particle and placed limits on new physics.

    CERN LHC Map
    CERN LHC Grand Tunnel
    CERN LHC particles
    LHC at CERN

    The LHC is now upgrading the energy and a new run is about to start. On the political side, the committees of the MEXT in Japan are evaluating the case for the ILC both technically and scientifically. It is thus important that we continue to update the physics case for the ILC and communicate it to relevant people.

    The task of updating the physics case for the ILC largely lies on the shoulders of the physics working group of the LCC. With the members of the MEXT committees as audience in mind, they have produced a document called Precis of the Physics Case for the ILC. This turned out to be an extremely useful document for newcomers such as incoming graduate students to learn about the physics of the ILC. It was, however, a little too technical for the audience originally intended. To fill the gap, it was followed by a shorter document intended really for general public – Scientific Motivations for the ILC. This latter document is now mostly ready for distribution. The content of these documents are used by members of those committees in their discussions.

    When evaluating the competitiveness of the ILC, we need to consider circular electron-positron colliders as well as a luminosity-upgraded LHC. At present, there are two studies on next-generation circular electron-positron collider: one at CERN and another in China. The one at CERN is called the FCC (Future Circular Collider) study the main part of which is a proton-proton collider with an optional electron-positron collider to start with. It would start after the LHC ends around 2035. The stated timing of the Chinese circular electron-positron collider, called CEPC, is earlier and about the same as that of the ILC. The CEPC is a Higgs factory with the design luminosity per collision point is about three times that of the baseline ILC running as a Higgs factory. It should be noted, however, that the upgraded ultimate ILC luminosity as a Higgs factory is four times that of the baseline. A merit of a circular collider is that multiple collisions points can be arranged. The CEPC would run with two collision points. All in all, the ILC
    as a Higgs factory is quite similar in luminosity to the CEPC. The wall plug power for the ultimate ILC Higgs factory is 187 MW, which is about the same as the current LHC, while that of CEPC is more than twice as much.

    2
    LC, LHC and the Chinese CEPC in overview

    At the latest LCB (Linear Collider Board) meeting, the way to communicate the physics case of the ILC to public was one of the topics intensively discussed. The LCB has then agreed that we need a short bulleted list of the physics case for the ILC. Several of us then sat down and came up with three points. Here they are with some editing:

    Important properties are the interaction strength between Higgs and other particles. ILC can measure them 3 to 10 times more accurately then the ultimate LHC. This means that the ILC is equivalent to 10 to 100 ultimate LHCs running simultaneously.

    The LHC can reach higher energy than the ILC, but can miss important phenomena.

    At the Tevatron collider, which is similar to the LHC, more than 10,000 Higgs particles were created but no clear signal was detected. At the ILC, about 100 Higgs particles are enough.

    FNAL Tevatron
    Fermilab CDF
    Fermilab DZero
    Tevatron at FNAL

    Circular electron-positron colliders have fundamental limits for energy increase due to synchrotron radiation.

    In the Standard Model of particle physics, the Higgs particle is the key particle and top quark is the heaviest particle.

    5
    Standard Model of Particle Physics. The diagram shows the elementary particles of the Standard Model (the Higgs boson, the three generations of quarks and leptons, and the gauge bosons), including their names, masses, spins, charges, chiralities, and interactions with the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. It also depicts the crucial role of the Higgs boson in electroweak symmetry breaking, and shows how the properties of the various particles differ in the (high-energy) symmetric phase (top) and the (low-energy) broken-symmetry phase (bottom).

    Higgs-Higgs, Higgs-top interactions cannot be directly measured at the circular electron colliders since they cannot reach high enough energy. When a new particle sits at just above the energy limit, the ILC could be upgraded to reach the energy by making it longer or using higher accelerating gradient while it is difficult for a circular collider.

    See the full article here.

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    The Linear Collider Collaboration is an organisation that brings the two most likely candidates, the Compact Linear Collider Study (CLIC) and the International Liner Collider (ILC), together under one roof. Headed by former LHC Project Manager Lyn Evans, it strives to coordinate the research and development work that is being done for accelerators and detectors around the world and to take the project linear collider to the next step: a decision that it will be built, and where.

    Some 2000 scientists – particle physicists, accelerator physicists, engineers – are involved in the ILC or in CLIC, and often in both projects. They work on state-of-the-art detector technologies, new acceleration techniques, the civil engineering aspect of building a straight tunnel of at least 30 kilometres in length, a reliable cost estimate and many more aspects that projects of this scale require. The Linear Collider Collaboration ensures that synergies between the two friendly competitors are used to the maximum.

    Linear Collider Colaboration Banner

     
  • richardmitnick 2:49 am on March 6, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration,   

    From LC Newsline: “Linear collider technology checks LHC lumi” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    5 March 2015
    Barbara Warmbein

    1
    The luminometer was installed in the CMS detector in January. Image: CERN

    There’s a piece of linear collider detector technology that is getting ready to take real collision data. The linear collider may be at planning stage, but right in the middle of the CMS detector, a luminometer based on work done for the forward region of the ILC’s ILD detector is very much a working piece of kit. It will measure the luminosity in CMS, ie the rate of collisions that the LHC produces per second, and the beam-induced background.

    CERN CMS New II
    CMS

    The luminometer, part of the beam radiation instrumentation and luminosity (BRIL) project at CMS, consists of the so-called pixel luminosity telescope PLT and another part called BCM1F. It’s the BCM1F, a DESY-CERN coproduction, that has its roots in the forward calorimeter. The forward calorimeter is located in a tough area that needs radiation-hard equipment in order to survive. Already several years ago the FCAL collaboration tested several different technologies and settled on diamond sensors. It was actually during one of the test beam periods at CERN that the collaboration for the CMS luminometer was born when the LC FCAL started chatting to CERN experts on beam halo monitoring.

    2
    The BCM1F sets itself apart thanks to diamonds and speed. Image: Wolfgang Lohmann, DESY

    Radiation-hardness isn’t the only thing that sets the BCM1F lumi tool apart: its sensors use diamond crystals that deliver ultra-short signals when a particle passes through. The application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) to amplify the signal, developed and commissioned by a team from AGH-UST Cracow, CERN and DESY (Zeuthen), takes only a few nanoseconds to be back online, making it possible to count particles that pass through at very short intervals. Physics can deduce whether the particle comes from a collision or from beam background based on the time they passed through.

    The luminometers were installed in CMS in January. The setup consists of two semi circles with an outside radius of 10 centimetres. They sit at 1,8 metres distance from the interaction point and, once the LHC starts up again, send their information about luminosity and particle count from the beam-induced background to the CMS and LHC control rooms every second.

    Meanwhile, over at the linear collider’s FCAL, the FCAL collaboration will use the experience acquired in the operation of the CMS luminometers in the LHC’s run 2 for the construction of prototypes of forward calorimeters. ASICs experts will get to work on FCAL-specific integrated circuits with the help of funds from the AIDA2020 programme. So in true particle physics cross-fertilisation tradition the technology that started in the linear collider community will give its first performance in the LHC only to to be developed further with the experience gained from that first performance.

    3
    The BRIL collaboration. Image: CERN

    See the full article here.

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    The Linear Collider Collaboration is an organisation that brings the two most likely candidates, the Compact Linear Collider Study (CLIC) and the International Liner Collider (ILC), together under one roof. Headed by former LHC Project Manager Lyn Evans, it strives to coordinate the research and development work that is being done for accelerators and detectors around the world and to take the project linear collider to the next step: a decision that it will be built, and where.

    Some 2000 scientists – particle physicists, accelerator physicists, engineers – are involved in the ILC or in CLIC, and often in both projects. They work on state-of-the-art detector technologies, new acceleration techniques, the civil engineering aspect of building a straight tunnel of at least 30 kilometres in length, a reliable cost estimate and many more aspects that projects of this scale require. The Linear Collider Collaboration ensures that synergies between the two friendly competitors are used to the maximum.

    Linear Collider Colaboration Banner

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 582 other followers

%d bloggers like this: