A DSF-MR Accelerator and the Combined Energy and Intensity Frontier Road
Map Proposal

Henryk Piekarz

June 10, 2007

At the Steering Group meeting on June 4, 2007 Dave McGinnis presented a
roadmap for the FNAL accelerator complex upgrade with respect to the
neutrino physics program for the period of the ILC R&D and construction
that will probably extend into the mid 2020's. Below we will provide
some clarifications to the DSF-MR proposal, and also present suggestions
how the DSF-MR accelerator could become part of the roadmap for the
neutrino physics at Fermilab.

1.  **Number of protons available for the neutrino production target**

The DSF-MR accelerator will use the Tevatron tunnel which circumference
is nearly exactly double of the Main Injector one. Consequently,
regardless of the pre-DSF-MR injector system used each of the DSF-MR
accelerators can stack two Main Injector beam batches, thus doubling in
this way the number of protons available for the production of neutrino
beams. As the projected number of protons per cycle with the SNUMI is \~
0.83 x 10 ^14^ the number of protons per DSF-MR ring will be \~ 1.66 x
10 ^14^, thus equal to the projected 1.70 x 10 ^14^ proton flux with the
new Booster + 8 GeV Linac (as suggested in the David McGinnis talk).

2.  **DSF-MR proton beam energy and the neutrino oscillation physics**

The DSF-MR can operate up to 480 GeV of the proton energy. The power on
target is proportional to beam energy, but as the proton energy
increases the mean energy of neutrinos from the meson decays shifts
toward higher energies. This implies that with higher proton energy one
may consider using higher energy neutrinos in the oscillation search
experiments. Indeed this is exactly the case of the CNGS experiment at
CERN that uses 400 GeV protons from the SPS, and it expects a factor 2-3
increase in the sensitivity relative to the NUMI experiment at Fermilab,
in spite of the proton flux per year to the CNGS target being much lower
than that for the NUMI.

In a recent International Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics
A. Donini (donini et al arxiv hep ph 0511134) presented a paper showing
that the Super-SPS of 1 TeV would offer unprecedented opportunity for
the experimental determination of the leptonic mixing matrix,
particularly of Dirac CP violation. He showed that a Super-SPS based
Beta Beam to Gran Sasso would have the potential of the "Phase II"
SuperBeams (e.g JAERI to HyperKamiokande) but using only a 40 kton iron
detector as opposed to an ultra-massive (1 Mton) water detector required
for the JAREI.

Consequently, we believe that increasing proton energy on the production
target from 120 GeV of the Main Injector to 480 GeV of the DSF-MR would
open more interesting possibilities for the new neutrino oscillation
experiments, and it could inspire improvements of the existing ones as
well.

3.  **Beam power on target with DSF-MR**

> The Fermilab complex reconfiguration would allow producing of \~ 1 MW
> power on target with 120 GeV beam of the Main Injector, and about 2.4
> MW at 120 GeV is projected if the New Booster + 8 GeV Linac were
> implemented.
>
> In general, the power on target is calculated as the number of protons
> per cycle times the proton energy. So, with the DSF-MR one might
> expect 2 (MI Pulses) x 4 (energy increase) = 8 times higher power on
> target, or 8 MW, if the SNUMI is used as the DSF-MR injector. How much
> of that power is actually used in the production of the desired
> neutrinos depends on the selected neutrino's energy, the neutrino beam
> triggering system, and the target configuration itself.
>
> At present the highest power acceptable for the neutrino production
> target is at 4 MW. In that case the proton beam from each of the
> DSF-MR rings could be extracted onto 2 different targets allowing for
> \~ 4 MW per target thus being equivalent to a 1 beam spill per 1
> second from the physics data flow rate point of view. This is
> considerably faster than 1.33 second cycle of the reconfigured
> Fermilab complex, or with 8 GeV Linac. A gap for the kicker rise time
> in the DSF-MR bunch train would be created between the two injected MI
> beam batches to facilitate beam extraction onto 2 different targets.
>
> Neither the reconfigured Fermilab complex (1 MW) nor the proposed New
> Booster with 8 GeV Linac (2.4 MW) can come even close to the 4 MW
> power on a single neutrino production target at 1 Hz rate available
> with the DSF-MR machine.

4.  **HINS and the ILC**

> In the Linac acceleration process the beam is tuned to both the beam
> current and energy to suppress transverse and longitudinal losses.
> These losses may inflict damage to the cavities and they cause serious
> radiation safety hazards. Consequently, focusing of the Linac beam is
> of a very great importance. As the focusing systems are significantly
> different for the electron and the proton beams it will be rather
> difficult (and potentially compromising performance of either mode) to
> use the same Linac configuration for both the electron and the proton
> beams. The best possible solution to this situation would be for the
> ILC Linac design effort to assume also the acceleration of the protons
> at the very early conceptual stage.
>
> It is hard to overestimate the importance of the ILC Linac test as it
> must proof not only the ILC feasibility (performance characteristics)
> but also the ILC cost effectiveness, especially if the required ILC
> energy turns up to be higher than currently anticipated. One can
> reasonably assume that the ILC Linac test will remain a "test bench"
> long into the actual construction of the machine. On the other hand
> the HINS primary purpose is to make physics, so how much time of the
> ILC Linac can be allocated to the HINS physics program without
> compromising Linac tests? It may be hazardous to both the Fermilab
> neutrino physics program and the ILC Accelerator Proposal to combine
> the two.

5.  **Timeline and cost considerations**

> The timeline and the cost of a project with respect to its potential
> physics outcome must be considered first before letting it to go
> ahead. There was neither timeline (with specific dates) nor projected
> cost in the Dave McGinnis proposal.
>
> The HINS project would be helpful if it operated at present. Some 5-6
> years from now however, when the HINS may become available, the
> current experiments at CERN, Japan and elsewhere will greatly surpass
> any reasonable physics expectations from the HINS due to following
> factors: (1) 120 GeV energy limitation of the available neutrino
> energies, (2) 2 MW maximum target power, (3) infrequent and short
> operations resulting from the time sharing with the ILC tests, and (4)
> NUMI and NOVA as the only applicable detectors (short baselines).
>
> The DSF-MR project, on the other hand, will allow exploration of the
> neutrino physics well beyond any conceivable results streaming from
> the current or planned neutrino experiments, and therefore it will
> extend well even into the ILC era.
>
> The cost of the DSF-MR is estimated at about \$M 300. Naturally, one
> would build one SF-MR accelerator first (\$M150) with beams extracted
> to NUMI and Nova if no new detector is available. For these two
> experiments (as they are already built or designed) one probably
> should extract the DSF-MR proton beam at energies most suitable for
> them, e.g. 120 GeV, or so. In this case the DSF-MR would just serve as
> an accumulator (constant energy of 120 GeV) of two MI beam batches in
> each ring. So, it would be possible to operate at 1.33 second cycle of
> the Main Injector, but the proton flux on the neutrino production
> target will be doubled, thus not only meeting but effectively
> exceeding by a factor of 2 (two simultaneous detector operations) the
> ultimate goal of the HINS.

6.  **Roadmap with DSF-MR**

It seems most reasonable to pursue the path of all the proposed SNUMI
upgrades. It will allow supporting in best possible way the current NUMI
and Nova experiments as these experiments are the only ones able to
produce physics at Fermilab in the next 5-6 years.

The HINS project should be carefully evaluated from the point of view of
its interaction with the ILC tests, its cost, and its practicality in
terms of the achievable timeline that at the end will determine its
usefulness for the neutrino physics at FNAL.

In order to investigate feasibility of the fast cycling accelerators we
propose to establish the Department of "Fast Cycling Superconducting
Accelerators", FCSA, within the APC structure. (In this scheme the HINS
Department should be probably renamed to a Superconducting Proton Linac
Group (SPL), as what it actually is. There are number of (1-2) GeV
proton linac proposals right now under consideration including one at
CERN. A collaboration of the SPL with the CERN new 2 GeV Linac Group
would probably be very beneficial for both Institutions.)

The goal of the FCSA will be to design fast cycling accelerators
including the design and development of the superconducting fast cycling
magnets. The design of these magnets would be done in conjunction with
the specific accelerators such as the new PS machines for CERN and FNAL
(Booster), the DSF-MR (FNAL) and the SF-SPS (CERN). A very preliminary
design work on these machines and magnets has been already done in
collaboration with CERN (Lucio Rossi, Gijsbert de Rijk) and FNAL (Steve
Hays, Yuenian Huang, Vadim Kashikhin, Henryk Piekarz, John Johnstone,
Tanaji Sen and Vladimir Shiltsev) and the magnet system design will be
presented at the MT20 Conference later this summer.

Initially, during the fast cycling accelerator designing stage the FCSA
Department would consist of few people including myself, S. Hays, V.V.
Kashikhin, Y. Huang, John Johnstone, Tanaji Sen and Vladimir Shiltsev,
each of us involved only part time. A more full time involvement for
some of us would occur after a decision is made to extend the project
into the magnet R&D including the prototyping stage. We expect that as
the LHC magnets become operational there will be more expanded
participation from CERN (Lucio Rossi already asked me to spent one month
at CERN later this summer but I conditioned my trip to the existence of
the interest at Fermilab in similar projects).

As indicated in the DSF-MR Proposal this machine could probably be built
in 5-6 years time span (a somewhat shorter time may be need if only one
ring of the DFS-MR is built) just in time to begin exploration with the
long baseline neutrino experiments. And as pointed out in the DSF-MR
Proposal the proton beams of up to 480 GeV would be also used for the
fixed target neutrino experiments as well as the ILC detector testing,
none of which will be available if the Fermilab accelerator complex
evolution path, as outlined in the David McGinnis talk, is adopted.