Design Study EURISOL DS European Isotope Separation On-Line

Design Study EURISOL DS: European Isotope Separation On-Line Radioactive Ion Beam Facility OUTCOME FROM THE PROJECT ACTIVITY in the period 20 March- 8 June, 2006 G. Fortuna, Krakow 2006

Design Study Report on the joint meeting of task 2, 3, 4 , 5. Legnaro; March 20 -21, 2006 Y. Kadi (CERN), T. Stora (CERN), L. Tecchio (INFN-LNL), D. Ridikas (CEA), A. Herrera-Martinez (CERN), M. Felcini (CERN), R. Mormann (Julich), I. Platinieks (IPUL), T. Dury (PSI), F. Groeshel (PSI) J. Neuhausen (PSI), B. Rapp (CEA), R. Wilfinger (CERN), L. Penescu (CERN), G. Prete (INFN-LNL), P. Zanonato (UNI-PD), G. Meneghetti (UNI-PD), E. Manfrin (PSI), L. Zanini (PSI), N. Thiolliere (CEA), O. Alyakrinskiy (INFNLNL), C. Lau (IPNO), G. Lhersonneau (INFN-LNL), G. Fortuna (INFN-LNL). Preparatory Work Reports by Task Leaders G. Fortuna, Krakow 2006

R. Battistella Caen 30/11/2005

R. Battistella Caen 30/11/2005

G. Fortuna, Krakow 2006

G. Fortuna, Krakow 2006

G. Fortuna, Krakow 2006

Design Study Report on extended capabilities of the driver accelerator GSI, Darmstadt; May 5, 2006 Joint Meeting of tasks 11, 7, 3, 8, (2, 4) Jean Luc Biarotte (IPN Orsay), Yorick Blumenfeld (IPN Orsay), Sébastien Bousson (IPN Orsay), John Cornell (GANIL), John D’Auria (Simon Fraser U. / TRIUMF); Alberto Facco (LNL Legnaro), Graziano Fortuna (LNL Legnaro), Aleksandra Kelic (GSI), Jacques Lettry (CERN), Mats Lindroos (CERN), Strahinja Lukic (GSI), Valentina Ricciardi (GSI), Karl Heinz Schmidt (GSI), Thierry Stora (CERN), Luigi Tecchio (LNL Legnaro), Martin Veselsky (IOP Bratislava) Preparatory Work Preliminary report on the benefit of extended capabilities of the driver accelerator by task 11 Joint Meeting of task 7, 8 held at Soreq (Israel) on 2 -4 April 06 G. Fortuna, Krakow 2006

Design Study List of possible extended capabilities of the CW driver accelerator optimized for 1 Ge. V, 5 m. A, proton beam 1. A higher energy proton beam (2 -3 Ge. V) 2. A high energy deuteron beam (1 Ge. V) 3. A “low energy” deuteron beam (~200 Me. V) 4. A 2 Ge. V 3 He beam 5. Heavy ion (HI) beams for A/Q =2 6. High energy HI-beams for A/Q up to 3 7. HI- beams for A/Q up to 3 for Fermi Energy regime nuclear reactions (~30 AMe. V) G. Fortuna, Athens 2006

Design Study Main Conclusions on the Driver extended Capabilities 1. 1 Ge. V, 5 m. A, proton beam is, by far, the preferred solution for the EURISOL driver, being the best overall, cost effective compromise between Physics requirements and technologies involved in the facility realization. 2. “gaps” and limitations in ISOL elements should be overcome through a vigorous R&D programme on target-ion source systems, an extended use of Resonant Ionization Laser Ion Sources and the availability of an “easy” high energy ( 2 Ge. V) beam, like 3 He. 3. 1 Ge. V deuteron beam incident on a converter target does not bring any substantial advantage with respect to a 1 Ge. V proton beam. 4. An intense medium- energy deuteron (100 -200 Me. V) beam brings higher energy, forward focused neutrons from a Carbon converter and thus a more efficient use of 238 U target. Whether the amount of very n-rich products is higher than that obtained in the “classical case” (Hg converter) is still debated, and no clear conclusion is given. G. Fortuna, Krakow 2006

Design Study Main Conclusions on the Driver extended Capabilities High energy HI-beams (several hundred Me. V/A) do not seem well suited for an ISOL scheme, because of huge power deposited in the needed production target. They are more suited for a fragmentation facility, especially in Europe, where the FAIR complex is getting in operation by 2011 -2012. In addition, the two-target scheme seems competitive only for volatile elements like Ne, Ar, Kr. Fermi energy HI-induced reactions show very attractive cross sections for many medium-mass, n-rich species. Again here the targets are an issue, and such beams should be available at high intensity stable beam facilities (SPIRAL 2). It is noted that n-rich unstable beams from the postaccelerator could be used to populate and study very n-rich isotopes through such Deep Inelastic collisions. G. Fortuna, Krakow 2006

Design Study Main Conclusions on the Driver extended Capabilities Accelerator issues Acceleration of beams like: 2 Ge. V 3 He, 250 Me. V deuterons , heavy ions with A/Q=2 up to 125 A Me. V, and 1 Ge. V H-, followed by magnetic or laser stripping to enhance the multi-user capability of the facility for CW- proton beams would increase the cost of 20%. These additional capabilities have a very small impact on the design of the accelerator, and basically no impact on the design of the cavities and on the work of task 8. Higher energy deuterons and/or HI with A/Q up to 3 would entail a very elaborate re-design of the accelerator and a very large cost increase. Target Issues. Changing the beam from proton, implies development of radically different targets: 3 He for example has a higher energy deposition than protons. the liquid Hg converter will not be at all adapted to 250 Me. V deuterons. There are no “show stoppers” but lack of resources in the DS to produce engineering oriented designs of all necessary targets. G. Fortuna, Krakow 2006

Design Study Report on Joint Meeting of Tasks 6, 9, 10 May 2, 2006, IPN-Orsay A. Bechtold, P. Bertrand, J-L Biarrotte, A. Pisent, M. Comunian, P. Posocco, M-H. Moscatello, D. Lunney, O. Kester, P. Delahaye, A. Jokinen, R. Page, N. Orr, J. Cornell, Y. Blumenfeld, P. Butler Preparatory Work Report on desirable beams and machine characteristics by N. Orr on behalf of task 10 G. Fortuna, Krakow 2006

Design Study Main recommendations for the base-line configuration of the Eurisol post-accelerator 1. The facility should have a minimum of two target – ion sources operational at any given time, with the additional possibility of multiple ion sources coupled to the MMW target running simultaneously. The provision of two or more beam preparation lines (pre-separator, cooler, high resolution mass separator and charge breeder) will ensure the simultaneous availability of different radionuclides for multiple users. 2. The facility should have 3 separate post-accelerators – a Very Low Energy accelerator (< 1 Me. V/u) for astrophysics and solid state physics applications, a linac for Coulomb barrier applications (1 - ~ 5 Me. V /u) and a high energy linac. The last should provide a maximum energy of 150 Me. V/u for 132 Sn and should have branches for different energy ranges in separate experimental halls (to be defined). G. Fortuna, Krakow 2006

Design Study Main recommendations for the base-line configuration of the Eurisol post-accelerator The beta-beam injector (100 Me. V/u 6 He and 18 Ne) should be a separate accelerator to those considered for NP. The need for very high instantaneous beam currents will necessitate a separate machine study outside of task 6. 2. For normal use, the linac post-accelerators should not employ stripping foils because of safety, beam loss, and beam quality considerations. However, the provision of strippers as an option is desirable for physics applications requiring shortlived radio-nuclides or high energy high A beams. 3. The option of beam sharing from a single accelerator should be considered in order to accommodate parasite users requiring set-up or test beams (stable or radioactive). Task 6 should consider how to achieve the most flexible scheme. 1. G. Fortuna, Krakow 2006

Design Study G. Fortuna, Krakow 2006