<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
Isn't there a concern that just because the FFA can accept any energy in the range, the splitter lines won't have the necessary flexibility to provide position/angle for different energies? Or is this a case of "if we know we need it, we can make sure we have
that flexibility"?</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
-Kirsten<br>
</div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab-bounces@jlab.org> on behalf of Berg, J Scott via FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab@jlab.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 25, 2023 11:59 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab@jlab.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [FFA_CEBAF_Collab] [EXTERNAL] RE: FFA energy range</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Presumably this could also be addressed with a redesign of the FFA? I would think we could accommodate the additional energy range and flexibility at the cost of larger magnets and maybe some other modest penalties like radiation? Or
is there something that stops this from working? I'm not suggesting it's the best choice, just an option.<br>
<br>
-Scott<br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab-bounces@jlab.org> On Behalf Of Jay<br>
> Benesch via FFA_CEBAF_Collab<br>
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2023 11:53 AM<br>
> To: FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab@jlab.org><br>
> Subject: [FFA_CEBAF_Collab] FFA energy range<br>
> <br>
> Colleagues,<br>
> <br>
> I did not understand this limitation when we changed to one FFA. I<br>
> suggest that being able to vary the beam energy is more important to<br>
> physics than 22 GeV. It would make the splitters easier to design too;<br>
> for that matter it's not clear that six splitters fit in the tunnel at<br>
> all.<br>
> <br>
> Jay<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------<br>
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: FFA energy range<br>
> Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 15:41:43 +0000<br>
> From: Brooks, Stephen <sbrooks@bnl.gov><br>
> To: Jay Benesch <benesch@jlab.org><br>
> CC: Katheryne Price <kprice@jlab.org><br>
> <br>
> Yes, essentially having the tunability costs you a turn because it<br>
> requires the FFA to accommodate lower energy beams at the low energy end<br>
> of the range, which would increase the ratio unless the highest energy<br>
> is also lowered.<br>
> <br>
> You have three options:<br>
> ~22GeV with no tunability, just discrete energies (14, 16, 18, 20, 22)<br>
> ~22GeV with a percent or two of tunability, so a small range around each<br>
> energy above<br>
> ~20GeV with close to full tunability (I haven't checked if it can 100%<br>
> cover with no gaps)<br>
> <br>
> -Stephen<br>
> <br>
> ________________________________________<br>
> From: Jay Benesch <benesch@jlab.org><br>
> Sent: 25 May 2023 11:36<br>
> To: Brooks, Stephen<br>
> Cc: Katheryne Price<br>
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: FFA energy range<br>
> <br>
> Stephen,<br>
> <br>
> I did not understand that. If we had only five FFA passes, 20 GeV top,<br>
> could the good field region and tune accommodate some energy span? The<br>
> users might prefer that to fixed energies, especially given the<br>
> unreliability of our SRF.<br>
> <br>
> Jay<br>
> <br>
> On 5/25/23 11:27, Brooks, Stephen wrote:<br>
> > There isn't any adjustable linac energy range in the 1-FFA solution. This<br>
> is one of the requirements that ended up being dropped when we changed to a<br>
> single FFA. Or to put it another way, accommodating linac tunability to get<br>
> a fully continuous energy range was one of the things that pushed me towards<br>
> the 2-FFA solution.<br>
> ><br>
> > Of course we could accommodate a couple of percent by running at slightly<br>
> dubious tunes.<br>
> ><br>
> > -Stephen<br>
> ><br>
> > ________________________________________<br>
> > From: Jay Benesch <benesch@jlab.org><br>
> > Sent: 25 May 2023 11:22<br>
> > To: Brooks, Stephen<br>
> > Subject: FFA energy range<br>
> ><br>
> > Stephen,<br>
> ><br>
> > I've forgotten the allowed energy range as it's been a year since it's<br>
> > been discussed. I remember linac energy range 1000-1100 MeV. Is that<br>
> > correct?<br>
> ><br>
> > Jay<br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> FFA_CEBAF_Collab mailing list<br>
> FFA_CEBAF_Collab@jlab.org<br>
> <a href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/ffa_cebaf_collab">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/ffa_cebaf_collab</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
FFA_CEBAF_Collab mailing list<br>
FFA_CEBAF_Collab@jlab.org<br>
<a href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/ffa_cebaf_collab">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/ffa_cebaf_collab</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>