Subject: RF PIT Assignments
From: Arne Freyberger <freyberg@jlab.org>
Date: 10/28/2016 11:23 AM
To: "krafft@jlab.org" <krafft@jlab.org>, Bob Legg <rlegg@jlab.org>, "baggett@jlab.org" <baggett@jlab.org>
CC: Anthony Reilly <areilly@jlab.org>, Robert Rimmer <RARimmer@jlab.org>, "kimber@jlab.org" <kimber@jlab.org>, Andrew Hutton <andrew@jlab.org>, "freyberg@jlab.org" <freyberg@jlab.org>, Steve Suhring <Suhring@jlab.org>, Randy Michaud <rmichaud@jlab.org>, Matt Bickley <bickley@jlab.org>

Bob, Ken and Geoff,
I'd like to build on the work that the Gradient team and Strategic RF PIT has accomplished in the the past year.   The success over the past year was partially the result of have well defined problems to address.   With that in mind I am going to propose two themes/problems that I'd like both teams to work together in addressing.
  1. Physics has stated that CEBAF must deliver beams with an energy/pass of 2.1 GeV/pass or higher in the Fall 2018.   CEBAF is presently at 2.1 GeV/pass with an acceptable trip rate.  Energy loss over the next two years will degrade CEBAF's energy reach making delivering 2.1+ GeV/pass in Fall 2018 questionable (understatement).   The task then is to develop a plan by the end of Mar. 2017 to maximize the probability that CEBAF can deliver beam at the required energy in Fall 2018 (and at 2.1 GeV/pass for all operations between now and Fall 2018).  The plan should not assume that funds will appear to solve the problem but should focus on maximizing the installed SRF/RF/Cryo base equipment.   I've attached a note that was developed to assess the situation for Fall2016 energy reach options  to spark the discussion.   The Mar. 2017 date is not arbitrary, as the plan needs to be well reviewed prior to Summer 2017 so that the work during the Summer 2017 and Summer 2018 are effectively used to achieve 2.1+ GeV/pass in Fall 2017 and Fall 2018.
  2. Determine the contributing causes to the under performance of the C100s.   The gradient team has identified the C100 under-performance as the main reason why CEBAF is not reaching its design energy.  In May of 2012, one C100 was operated fully beam loaded (485 uA) with an energy gain of 104 MeV.  This type of performance, in GDR mode with beam, has not been observed since this test.   Why?   Beam studies time can be used to collect data.
It may be beneficial to name a leader/champion to organize and lead the effort. 

I am looking forward to the conversation!

Arne
-- 
Arne Freyberger
Director of Accelerator Operations
Jefferson Lab           Office: (757) 269-6289
12000 Jefferson Avenue    Cell: (757) 876-6289
Newport News, VA 23606   Email: freyberg@jlab.org