XFEL

i XFEL
X -Ray Free-Elect ron Laser
Optimizing Magnetic Shielding vs.
Cryogenics
Configurations ILC (~16 000 cavités)
i XFEL
X -Ray Free-Elect ron Laser
Configurations ILC (~10 000 cavités)
i XFEL
X -Ray Free-Elect ron Laser
Configurations ILC (~10 000 cavités)
i XFEL
X -Ray Free-Elect ron Laser
Double Blindage
i XFEL
X -Ray Free-Elect ron Laser
Double Blindage
i XFEL
X -Ray Free-Elect ron Laser
Cryonomics
If I am allowed to extrapolate the 75% increase of Q
shown by E. Kako with a double
magnetic shielding, to ILC cavities with Eacc = 31.5 MV/m
0
and with the assumptions:
grid power = 0,15 € /kWh@300 K
CoP(2K) = 700 W/W
magnetic shield = 1000€ / cavity
cryogenics = 1 M€/100 W@2K
Pdyn. = 5.5 kW@2K , 3.8 MW
Pdyn. = 9.6 kW@2K , 6.7 MW @ 300 K
€
€
Q0 = 8 1010 (RDR )
05/12/2011
Q0 = 1.4 1010
O. Napoly
7
Magnetic Shielding
Produced by
MecaMagnetic from
Aperam/Cryophy
1mm sheets
Magnetic shields are qualified by the excellent
dynamic cryogenic performance of XM-3
i XFEL
X -Ray Free-Elect ron Laser
2. cw and lp operation; 3 experiments
c. Dynamic heat load for Large Grain Cryomodule
XM-3 cavities: vertical tests at 2K (7 Large Grain +1 Fine Grain cavity)
4.E+10
Qo
3.E+10
2.E+10
AC114
AC157
1.E+10
0
AC156
AC158
4
AC146
AC151
8
Eacc [MV/m]
AC154
AC152
12
16
Measured dynamic heat load
J. Sekutowicz, Towards More Flexibility in Operation of the XFEL Linac, DESY, October 25th, 2013
9
Conclusion
i XFEL
X -Ray Free-Elect ron Laser
Increasing Q0 of ILC cavities by whatever means, is GREEN
Better magnetic shielding is one possible cost efficient way.