“Energy Upgrade Scenario TG” Report.pptVIP

Dec. 2005 E-upgrade TG @ GDE Frascati “Energy Upgrade Scenario TG” Report L.Lilje, T.Raubenheimer and N.Toge Full Report: /wiki/doku.php?id=bcd:white_papers:white_papers_home Additional info: http://lcdev.kek.jp/GDE/EUpgradeTF/ Recommendations as submitted to GDE EC Recommend Option 1 Option 1 offers good operability during Phase-1, adequate provision for beam diagnostic capabilities and ability to accommodate upgraded SRF hardware components relatively seamlessly. Option 1, being conceptually the simplest among the schemes considered here, helps GDE develop the solid understanding of the practical fundamentals of the engineering designs and the cost analyses the most rapidly. Much of the understanding on the engineering and the cost, to be gained from the exercise with Option 1, can be readily applied to examine the technical and cost implications of other Options soon thereafter, if deemed adequate. Remarks to GDE EC (1) Concerning Option 3: Option 3 offers the lowest cost for Phase-1 yet it requires the highest cost for the whole Phases 12, because of the staged civil construction and relocation of the injector systems. Phase-2 upgrade for Option 3 is likely to take the longest time period, because of, again, the staged civil construction and the fact that the installation of RF source components cannot start till the extension tunnels are complete. The relative merit of Option 3 will have to be looked at in the context of the project acceptance from the political or long-term financial standpoint. Such analysis can be done after the complete Option 1 study is done. (NT comment: Implications on the prospects for physics programs also need to be looked at, but our TG report did not specifically touch on it). Remarks to GDE EC (2) Concerning Option 4: Option 4 offers the operability and upgradeability similar to those of Option 1, plus substantially more diagnostic sections during Phase-1. At this point, however, the task group does not see convin