M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 1 Issues in the Formation and Dissipation of the Electron Cloud Miguel A. Furman, LBNL [email protected]13th ICFA Beam Dynamics Mini Workshop “Beam-Induced Pressure Rise in Rings” BNL, Dec. 8–12, 2003 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory My gratitude to: A. Adelmann, G. Arduini, M. Blaskiewicz, O. Brüning, Y. H. Cai, R. Cimino, I. Collins, O. Gröbner, K. Harkay, S. Heifets, N. Hilleret, J. M. Jiménez, R. Kirby, G. Lambertson, R. Macek, K. Ohmi, M. Pivi, G. Rumolo, F. Zimmermann.
51
Embed
Issues in the Formation and Dissipation of the Electron Cloud Miguel A. Furman, LBNL
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Issues in the Formation and Dissipation of the Electron Cloud Miguel A. Furman, LBNL [email protected] 13th ICFA Beam Dynamics Mini Workshop “Beam-Induced Pressure Rise in Rings” BNL, Dec. 8–12, 2003. My gratitude to: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 1
Issues in the Formation and Dissipationof the Electron Cloud
13th ICFA Beam Dynamics Mini Workshop“Beam-Induced Pressure Rise in Rings”
BNL, Dec. 8–12, 2003
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
My gratitude to:
A. Adelmann, G. Arduini, M. Blaskiewicz, O. Brüning, Y. H. Cai, R. Cimino, I. Collins, O. Gröbner, K. Harkay, S. Heifets, N. Hilleret, J. M. Jiménez, R. Kirby,G. Lambertson, R. Macek, K. Ohmi, M. Pivi, G. Rumolo, F. Zimmermann.
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 2
Summary• Motivation: better understand electron cloud (EC) dynamics
– in particular: effect of secondary electron process
• Tools:– simulations (mostly code POSINST – Furman and Pivi); other codes by Ohmi, Zimmermann,
Rumolo, Blaskiewicz, Adelmann,... also take SE into account
– secondary electron emission (SEY): may lead to beam-induced multipatcing (BIM)
– examples:
• sensitivity to secondary emission yield (E0) (E0=incident electron energy)
• secondary emission spectrum d/dE (E=emitted electron energy)
• EC dissipation– focus: mostly PSR, also APS and SPS: role of (0)
• Scrubbing effect and conclusions
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 3
Tools• Simulation
– detailed model for and d/dE– input data: measurements by R. Kirby, N. Hilleret, R. Cimino, I. Collins and
others• St. St., Cu, Al, TiN
– electron cloud is dynamical– beam is a prescribed function of time, space
• Electron detectors– RFA (Harkay and Rosenberg, NIMPR A453, 507 (2000); PRSTAB 6, 034402)
• installed at APS, PSR, BEPC, ANL IPNS RCS
• measure Iew and d/dE at chamber wall (“prompt” electrons)
– “sweeping detector” at PSR (Browman, Macek)• installed at PSR• measure EC density in the bulk (“swept” electrons)
– strip detector at SPS, COLDEX, PUs• (Jiménez et al., PAC03)• strip detector in an adjustable B field
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(ROAB003; ROPA007)
(ROAB003)
(TOPC003; TPPB054)
PAC03 refs. in blue
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 4
EC formation: basics
• Electron charge conservation in a given chamber section– assuming no antechamber, no net end-losses
– assumes 3 primary processes: • photoelectrons
• residual gas ionization
• beam-particle losses
Assume: =beam line density Z=beam particle chargep=chamber x-section perimeter
Iew=e– flux at wall [A/m2]
=primary production rate [m–1]
per beam particleLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(M. Blaskiewicz)
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 5
EC formation: primary e– rate of creation
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
vb = beam speed
Yeff = eff. quantum efficiency (e– yield per )
i = ioniz. cross-section per beam particle
pvac = vac. pressure
T = temperature
eff = eff. e– yield per (beam particle)-wall collision
n'bpl = beam particle loss rate per unit length per beam particle
• Electron production rate per beam particle per unit length of beam trajectory:
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 6
Secondary e– emission
Simulation (Furman-Pivi, PRSTAB 5, 124404):– event=one electron-wall collision– instantaneous generation of n secondaries (or absorption)– include E0 and 0 dependence– detailed phenomenological model for and d/dE
Three main components of emitted electrons:
elastics:
rediffused:
true secondaries:
NB: d/dE is different for e, r and ts!!!
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 7
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 20
BIM for long bunches: case of PSR-contd.
head
truncated bunch(nominal charge)
nominalbunch
tail
L=150 ns
• simulated “experiment” in trailing edge multipacting: — truncate bunch tail at fixed bunch charge
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
• suppresses the resonance • hard to put into practice! (M. Pivi)
bunch profile
aver. e– line density
(RPPG024)
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 21
EC dissipation - simplest analysis
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
N
N’2b
If not monoenergetic and not along a straight line, then
• beam has been extracted, or gap between bunches• field-free region, or constant B field • assume monoenergetic blob of electrons• neglect space-charge forces
where K=f(angles)≈1.1–1.2
simulations show that this formulaworks to within ~20%
and = dissipation time
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 22
EC dissipation in PSR after beam extraction
• “Sweeping e– detector”– measures electrons in the bulk ≈ 200 ns eff ≈ 0.5 if E = 2–4 eV
– since eff ≈ (0), you infer (0)
– well supported by simulations (see next slide)
(Macek and Browman)
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(RPPB035)
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 23Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
EC dissipation after beam extraction: PSR simulation
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
line density [nC/m]
2.0x10-61.81.61.41.21.00.80.60.40.20.0
time [s]
EC line density beam line density
exponential decay(slope=2e-07 s)
PSRdissip3
aver. neutralization level
PSR simulationfield-free section, N=5e13
p loss rate=4e-6/m, yield=100 e/pNB: primary e– rateis 100 x nominal
input SEY:
max = 1.7 (0) = 0.4
EC line density vs. time (field-free region)
slope = 200 ns
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 24
EC dissipation after beam extraction: PSR simulation
0.1
1
10
100
1000
electron energy [eV]
2.0x10-6
1.81.61.41.21.00.80.60.40.20.0
tsm [s]
collision energy per electron absorbed energy per electron beam signal (arb. units)
PSR simulationfield-free section, N=5e13
p loss rate=4e-6/m, yield=100 e/p
PSRdissip3
e–-wall collision energy vs. time (field-free region)
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 25Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
EC dissipation after beam extraction: SPS simulation
0.01
0.1
1
10
line density [nC/m]
2.4x10-62.22.01.81.61.41.21.00.80.60.40.20.0
time [s]
EC line density beam line density
exponential decayslope=1.7e-07 [s]
SPS_P1e_4_nb72a.dir
av. beam neutralization level
SPS simulationP=1e-4 Torr, B=0.2 T, N=8e10,
rect. chamber (a,b)=(7.7,2.25) cm
NB: pvac is>> nominal
• stainless steel chamber, dipole magnet, B = 0.2 T, • dominant primary process: residual gas ionization;
slope = 170 ns
input SEY:
max = 1.9 (0) = 0.5
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 26Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
EC dissipation after beam extraction: SPS simulation
0.1
1
10
100
1000
electron energy [eV]
2.4x10-6
2.22.01.81.61.41.21.00.80.60.40.20.0
tsm [s]
collision energy per electron absorbed energy per electron
SPS simulationP=1e-4 Torr, B=0.2 T, N=8e10,
rect. chamber (a,b)=(7.7,2.25) cm SPS_P1e_4_nb72a.dir
e–-wall collision energy vs. time (B-field region)
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 27
Conditioning effects: beam scrubbing
• Decrease of SEY by e– bombardment– self-conditioning effect for a storage ring: “beam scrubbing”
• SPS ECE studies (M. Jiménez; F. Zimmermann):– 3+ years of dedicated EC studies with dedicated instrumentation
– scrubbing very efficient; favorable effects seen in:• vacuum pressure
• in-situ SEY measurements
• electron flux at wall
– e– energy distribution in good agreement with simulations above 30 eV
– TiZrV coating fully suppresses multipacting after activation
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(see also: MOPA001; TPPB054)
(TOPC003)
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 28
Conditioning effects: beam scrubbing
• PSR “prompt” e– signal (BIM) is subject to conditioning: (R. Macek)– signal is stronger for st.st. than for TiN
– sensitive to location and N
– signal does not saturate as N increases up to ~8x1013
– conditioning: down by factor ~5 in sector 4 after few weeks (low current)
• PSR “swept” e– signal is not:– signal saturates beyond N~5x1013
– ≈ 200 ns, independent of:
• N
• location
• conditioning state
• st. st. or TiN
• Tentative conclusion: beam scrubbing conditions max but leaves (0) unchanged
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(ROAB003; RPPB035)
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 29
Conditioning effects–contd.
• consistent with bench results for Cu found at CERN!
– the result (0)≈1 seems unconventional
– if validated, it could have a significant unfavorable effect on the EC power deposition in the LHC
• because electrons survive longer in between bunches
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(R. Cimino and I. Collins, proc. ASTEC2003, Daresbury Jan. 03)
Copper SEY (CERN)
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 30
Conclusions
• A consistent picture of the ECE is emerging for– low-energy machines (long bunch, intense beam)
– high-energy machines (short, well separated bunches)
– methodical measurements and simulation benchmarks at APS, PSR and SPS are paying off
– some interesting surprises along the way
• Quantitative predictions are becoming more reliable– we are growing older but wiser
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 31
Additional material
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 32
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 33
M. A. Furman, BNL, Dec. 8-12, 2003, “Electron Cloud ...” p. 34Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Emission energy spectrum, E0=300 eVstainless steel, normal incidence(data courtesy R. Kirby, SLAC standard 304 rolled sheet,chemically etched and passivated but not conditioned)