4.4 Article

Potential impedance reduction by REBCO-coated conductors as beam screen coating for the Future Circular Hadron Collider

Journal

EPL
Volume 140, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/acaac3

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Bruker HTS GmbH
  2. Fujikura Ltd.
  3. SuNAM CO Ltd SuperOx
  4. SuperPower Inc.
  5. ThevaD unnschichttechnik GmbH
  6. Unit of Excellence Maria de Maeztu [MDM2016-0600]
  7. [MSCA-COFUND-2016-754397]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Future Circular Collider study explores the use of 16 T superconducting dipoles and REBCO-coated conductors to improve the performance of the beam screen, resulting in lower resistive wall impedance in high-energy collisions.
The Future Circular Collider study creates a conceptual design for a post-LHC par-ticle accelerator using 16 T superconducting dipoles to achieve collision energies of up to 100 TeV in a 90 km circumference ring. A copper-coated beam screen, similar to that used in the LHC, is planned. However, the undertaken research indicates that copper at the high working temperature of 50 K has a strong influence on the accelerator's performance, particularly at injection energy. In this work, we relate the experimentally determined properties of REBCO-coated conductors with their potential performance in the FCC-hh beam screen. Specifically, we use a round pipe approximation to demonstrate that a beam screen coated with a combination of REBCO and copper can have a much lower resistive wall impedance than one using only copper. The reduc-tion is substantial (several orders of magnitude), and is observed in both the longitudinal and transverse wall impedance. Such a reduction has important effects on beam stability, operating costs, potential reduction in beam screen size, and lowering the stringent specifications of the 16 T magnets required for the Future Circular Hadron Collider.Copyright @2022 The author(s)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available