1 brookhaven science associates john hill efac may 10 th 2007 experimental facilities overview

1 BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES

John Hill EFAC May 10th 2007

Experimental Facilities Overview


Outline

Activities since last EFAC meeting:

• Lehman review

• Budget

• Schedule

• Radiation Sources

• Hiring update

• R+D update

• Response to EFAC suggestions/recommendations


“Lehman” CD-1 Review, December 2006

1) R+D program is appropriate2) Funding for beamlines not sufficient to demonstrate unique

capabilities of NSLS-II or meet user demand.3) Include beam diagnostic BM beamline as part of the project4) Include mirror metrology R+D in the project5) Develop beamline access policy in which facility has the

responsibility for design, construction and operation of all beamlines.

6) Establish collaborations for design, testing of BL components.

Overall, the review was very positive in regard to the NSLS-II design and team.

Recommendations for XFD:


Experimental Facilities Budget

CD1 Review – December 2006 Current – May 2007

Estimate plus burdens & escalation

35% Contingenc

y Total

Estimate plus burdens & escalation

38% Contingency Total

Experimental Facilities Total $53.8 $18.8 $72.6 $74.0 $27.8 $101.8

Management and Specification Development $3.9 $1.4 $5.3 $3.9 $1.5 $5.4

User Instruments $49.9 $17.4 $67.3 $70.1 $26.3 $96.4

Increase of $30 M to bottom line


Schedule for Project Beamline Activities

Determine High Level BL Specifications 01-Oct-07 to 01-May-08Decide Insertion Device for BL 01-Oct-07 to 01-May-08Conceptual Design of Project Beamlines 01-Oct-07 to 01-May-09Submit Conceptual Design to Facility and to EFAC 01-May-09Technical Design of Project Beamlines 04-May-09 to 01-Sep-10Submission of 100% Technical Design to Facility and to EFAC01-Sep-10Procurement of Major Beamline Components 16-Mar-11 to 12-Aug-11Contracts Awarded for Major Components 12-Aug-11Fabrication of Major Components 15-Aug-11 to 14-May-12Installation of FOE Hutch 16-Jan-12 to 01-May-12Install of Monochromatic Hutches 13-Feb-12 to 31-Aug-12Testing of Major Beamline Components 14-Mar-12 to 29-Aug-12Beneficial Occupancy of FOE Hutch 01-May-12Install BL Hardware into Hutches 02-May-12 to 01-Nov-12Delivery of Major Components to Site 14-May-12Testing on all Major Components Complete 29-Aug-12Beneficial Occupancy of Monochromatic Hutches 31-Aug-12Beamline Hardware in place, Ready for Beam 01-Nov-12Commissioning Beamline components without Beam 02-Nov-12 to 01-Apr-13Beam Commissioning of FOE Components 18-Jun-13 to 12-Aug-13Beam Delivered to Endstation 1 of BL1 12-Aug-13Commissioning of Endstation 1 13-Aug-13 to 13-Feb-14


Schedule for Project Beamlines

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Conceptual Design

Technical Design

Major procurement

fabrication

Hutch installation

Hardware installation

Testing (no beam)

Commissioning with beam


Three-pole Wigglers

Added to give the users access to hard x-ray dipoles without big impact on the emittance.

~15 added to the lattice


Radiation Sources: Brightness

1015

1016

1017

1018

1019

1020

1021

1022

Bri

gh

tnes

s [p

ho

ton

s/se

c/0.

1%b

w/m

m2 /m

rad

2 ]

10 eV 100 eV 1keV 10keV 100keV

Photon Energy [eV]

VUVhcrit

EPU100 VUV undulator100 mm, L=4 m, Kmax=14.0

EPU45 SXU45 mm, L=4.0 m, Kmax=4.33

U14 SCU14 mm, L=2.0 m, Kmax=2.2

W60 SCW,B=6.0 T, 60 mm,L=1.0 m, K=33.6

DW100 damping wiggler,B=1.8 T, 100 mm,L=7 m, K=16.8

U19 CPMU19 mm, L=3.0 m, Kmax=2.03

Ring parameters: 3.0 GeV, 0.5 A, h=0.55 nm, v=0.01 nm, energy spread=0.001

Straight section parameters: 5 m length: h=2.7 m, v=0.945 m; 8 m length: h=18.2 m, v=3.09 m; h=v=h=v=h=v=0

Bend magnet parameters: h=0.65 m, v=25.1 m, h=0.032, v=-0.044, h=0.04 m, h=0.056, v=v=0

25 m radius bend,B=0.4 T, Ec=2.39 keV

3-pole wiggler,B=1.0 T, Ec=5.98 keV


Radiation Sources: Flux

4

68

1014

2

4

68

1015

2

4

68

1016

2

Flu

x [p

ho

ton

s/se

c/0.

1%b

w]

101

102

103

104

105

Photon Energy

VUVhcrit

EPU100 VUV undulator100 mm, L=4 m, Kmax=14.0

EPU45 SXU45 mm, L=4.0 m, Kmax=4.33

U14 SCU14 mm, L=2.0 m, Kmax=2.2

W60 SCW,B=6.0 T, 60 mm,L=1.0 m, K=33.6

Damping Wiggler DW100B=1.8 T, 100 mm,L=7 m, K=16.8

U19 CPMU19 mm, L=3.0 m, Kmax=2.03

Ring parameters: 3.0 GeV, 0.5 A, h=0.55 nm, v=0.01 nm, energy spread=0.001

Straight section parameters: 5 m length: h=2.7 m, v=0.945 m; 8 m length: h=18.2 m, v=3.09 m; h=v=h=v=h=v=0

Bend magnet parameters: h=0.65 m, v=25.1 m, h=0.032, v=-0.044, h=0.04 m, h=0.056, v=v=0

25m-radius bend,B=0.4 T, Ec=2.39 keV

3-pole wiggler,B=1.0 T, Ec=5.98 keV


Radiation Sources: Infra-Red

New “extra-large” gap dipoles (90mm) boost performance in far-IR.


Recent Activities

• Explored use and impact of the addition of a few extended straight sections (up to 18m).• Decision to pursue 15-fold lattice for CD-2, but in parallel explore

“upgrade path” to lattice to allow for 3 extended straight sections. Can be implemented without changing circumference.

• Work on user requirements for stability – part of Stability Task Force and workshop (April 18-20).• For 1nm and 0.1meV: 10% stability goal for electron beam seems

compatible with experiments, if supplemented by state-of-the-art beamline feedback (will require some detector R+D).Some techniques, e.g. IR, imaging and PX, need beam position stability <10% of beam size. BL Feedback probably req’d.


Recent Activities, continued

• Identified 6 Project Beamlines• Present to EFAC now and Users in 2 weeks,• Reworking schedule in light of this decision

• User meeting set: July 17th, 18th 2007• Present design and solicit feedback and input• Discuss project BLs• Discuss transition from NSLS to NSLS-II

• Lab space requirements identified for R+D activities.


Hiring Update

Requisitions have been cut and job descriptions posted for 11 positions:

1) Inelastic Beamline group leader2) Nanoprobe beamline group leader3) 1nm R+D Group leader4) 0.1 meV R+D Group leader5) Interface manager6) Deposition scientist7) Deposition post-doc8) X-ray optics theorist9) X-ray optics theory post-doc10) Assist. Phys. 0.1 meV11) Post-doc 0.1 meV

Active recruitment underway for all these, interviews are ongoing and in many cases offers are imminent.


Responses to EFAC suggestions

1) Recommend proactive plan to move beamlines from NSLS to NSLS-II to satisfy large existing user community.

- Plan is being developed (Hulbert’s talk)

2) Investigate routes to increase brightness. Specifically 3 vs 3.6 GeV and multiple in-line undulators

- Minimal increase in B below 15 keV for 3.6 GeV- Extended straights under active investigation as

modification to CD2 lattice. (Ozaki’s talk)



3) Keep project attention on realistic heat load issues, focus on project beamline requirements and justify motivation for canted damping wigglers

- For undulator calculations, these suggestions have been taken on board.

- Damping wigglers have been added to project beamlines, driving the need to address these issues now

- Canted devices provide brighter sources for e.g. PX (Berman’s talk)

4) Beamlines should be dedicated to a single technique unless appropriate sharing possible

- Agreed.



5) Support large gap dipole chambers for far IR. Consider slotted mirrors for heat load issues. Consider effects of top-off on IR

- Done (Carr’s talk)

6) Question if the asymmetric optics scheme can be used at 1 meV as well as 0.1 meV and to consider multiplexing analysers.

- The same scheme can also run at 1 meV, with significant advantages over traditional schemes (see CDR)

- Multiplexing analysers has not yet been looked into.



6) Kinoform calculations• In process of hiring theorist for this.

Calculations in optical limit support diffraction limited performance. (Evans-Lutterodt’s talk)

7) Optics R+D metrology needs to be beefed up.- The project agrees with this and is working to place

funds in FY08 and beyond for this effort. Lab space needs have been identified for clean-room, etc.



8) BAT allocations should be 21.25% over first four years

- Such allocation schemes are still on the table. There have been a number of discussions on related issues with the DOE. This remains an on-going issue. (Hill’s talk).


Charge to EFAC

• Do the project beamlines selected provide a minimal set of capabilities that both take advantage of the properties of the NSLS-II beam and provide work-horse capacity for a significant number of users?

• Is the process to define the scientific mission for these beamlines a reasonable one? Does it ensure appropriate user involvement? Is the schedule reasonable?

• Is the scope of the plan to move beamlines from NSLS to NSLSII at the start of the operations sufficient? (Range of techniques available, user capacity)

• Is the process to develop this plan further a reasonable one? Does it have appropriate involvement of all the necessary stakeholders?

Some questions we would particularly like feedback on include:

1 brookhaven science associates john hill efac may 10 th 2007 experimental facilities overview

Documents