<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Delay for the LHC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/</link>
	<description>Random samplings from a universe of ideas.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:45:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: LHC - Take 2 &#124; Cosmic Variance &#124; Discover Magazine</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-51313</link>
		<dc:creator>LHC - Take 2 &#124; Cosmic Variance &#124; Discover Magazine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:30:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-51313</guid>
		<description>[...] has issued a press release detailing the extent of the damage from the September 19 incident, the plans for retrofitting the magnets to ensure it does not happen again, and a new schedule. The [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] has issued a press release detailing the extent of the damage from the September 19 incident, the plans for retrofitting the magnets to ensure it does not happen again, and a new schedule. The [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Harbles</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44582</link>
		<dc:creator>Harbles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:00:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44582</guid>
		<description>Oops.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://proj-obrs.web.cern.ch/proj-obrs/servlet/Redirect?p_query=Main%20Dipoles&amp;p_url=https://edms.cern.ch/file/455919/1/ElecInterconnections_Tock.pdf&amp;p_document_id=6639&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; Here.&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oops.</p>
<p><a href="http://proj-obrs.web.cern.ch/proj-obrs/servlet/Redirect?p_query=Main%20Dipoles&amp;p_url=https://edms.cern.ch/file/455919/1/ElecInterconnections_Tock.pdf&amp;p_document_id=6639" rel="nofollow"> Here.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Harbles</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44581</link>
		<dc:creator>Harbles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:57:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44581</guid>
		<description>Eureka! I have found the &lt;a href=&quot;http://proj-obrs.web.cern.ch/proj-obrs/servlet/index?cookie=7907589&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;holy grail&lt;/a&gt; of electrical connections.

Over 10000 13KA connections alone!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eureka! I have found the <a href="http://proj-obrs.web.cern.ch/proj-obrs/servlet/index?cookie=7907589" rel="nofollow">holy grail</a> of electrical connections.</p>
<p>Over 10000 13KA connections alone!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Harbles</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44580</link>
		<dc:creator>Harbles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 15:05:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44580</guid>
		<description>The fundamental cause of the incident is the failure ( going open circuit ) of an electrical connection  between two superconducting magnets. I imagine the only thing left of said connection is that fine black soot that has contaminated the beam tubes in a large area either side of the failure. I have been trying to find out the details of how does one make connections between superconducting magnets or buss bars. Is the technique used in the LHC  an old tried and true method with a great deal of engineering experience behind it or a new innovative method that has less time in use. If it&#039;s an old method one can only hope that this particular incident was the result of improper installation and not a fundamental flaw with the connection method that is used some 6000 times  in the entire collider.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The fundamental cause of the incident is the failure ( going open circuit ) of an electrical connection  between two superconducting magnets. I imagine the only thing left of said connection is that fine black soot that has contaminated the beam tubes in a large area either side of the failure. I have been trying to find out the details of how does one make connections between superconducting magnets or buss bars. Is the technique used in the LHC  an old tried and true method with a great deal of engineering experience behind it or a new innovative method that has less time in use. If it&#8217;s an old method one can only hope that this particular incident was the result of improper installation and not a fundamental flaw with the connection method that is used some 6000 times  in the entire collider.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44579</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:17:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44579</guid>
		<description>W00t! SUSY Higgs at the Tevatron in late &#039;09 early &#039;10 or before 15 fb-1 acquired! am I right kids?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>W00t! SUSY Higgs at the Tevatron in late &#8217;09 early &#8217;10 or before 15 fb-1 acquired! am I right kids?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jfb</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44588</link>
		<dc:creator>jfb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:26:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44588</guid>
		<description>Corrections to comment 17

I hadn&#039;t read the four page  report before writing, just the press release.

Pressure relief is via spring loaded disks in the short straight sections.

This sector was the only one which hadn&#039;t been taken to 5.5 TeV equivalent currents prior to the incident.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Corrections to comment 17</p>
<p>I hadn&#8217;t read the four page  report before writing, just the press release.</p>
<p>Pressure relief is via spring loaded disks in the short straight sections.</p>
<p>This sector was the only one which hadn&#8217;t been taken to 5.5 TeV equivalent currents prior to the incident.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jfb</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44587</link>
		<dc:creator>jfb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:09:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44587</guid>
		<description>http://ab-div.web.cern.ch/ab-div/Publications/LHC-DesignReport.html
is the LHC design report.  There are 1232 main dipoles.

Each of the eight 2K refrigerators at LHC is slightly larger than the previous record holder at Jefferson Lab.   If there were more connections from 2K to room temperature the refrigeration costs would go up substantially.  This is part of the risk-benefit tradeoff that was done during design.   There are eight ~3km cryo loops.

Burst disks for pressure relief are graphite machined so they will burst at a precise pressure differential.  When I was in the MRI magnet business two decades ago we specified the things to burst at 19-21 psi differential if memory serves.  Bigger burst disks mean bigger stainless pipes and flanges; these cost a lot more than the graphite disk.   Retrofitting bigger disks to existing magnets, if that is what&#039;s planned, will be touchy because once can&#039;t afford to get chips into the super-insulation.   One will have to warm up the magnets to increase the size of the disks because one has to bring the insulation vacuum space to atmosphere.

Again, one models the anticipated failure modes, determines the gaseous helium flow rates needed to keep over-pressure down, and sizes the pipes and burst disks with appropriate engineering safety factor.  Too big a disk and the cost is too high.   CERN had to borrow from their employees pension fund to get the funds needed to build LHC - the member states wouldn&#039;t increase their contributions enough to fund it otherwise.   Cpst containment was VERY important.

The 5 TeV energy for the initial run was chosen because all of the sectors exceeded the field needed for this energy in sector by sector tests.  All the magnets trained to fields above those needed for 7 TeV at acceptance, but some relaxed at room temperature or during installation.

I am sure CERN will work hard to determine what caused the interconnect to fail this time rather than during previous excursions to similar currents.

Using steel magnets one would need a ring ~150 km in circumference for this energy.   The LHC tunnel was dug for LEP so only the enlarged detector caverns were needed WRT civil construction.    Superconducting magnets are the only solution for hadron machines at these energies.

The next machine, if built, will be a linear collider.  The larger international effort plans to use superconducting RF cavities to accelerate electrons and positrons.  http://www.linearcollider.org/cms/?pid=0
The smaller effort, CLIC at CERN,  works with room temperature RF.   http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/188858/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://ab-div.web.cern.ch/ab-div/Publications/LHC-DesignReport.html" rel="nofollow">http://ab-div.web.cern.ch/ab-div/Publications/LHC-DesignReport.html</a><br />
is the LHC design report.  There are 1232 main dipoles.</p>
<p>Each of the eight 2K refrigerators at LHC is slightly larger than the previous record holder at Jefferson Lab.   If there were more connections from 2K to room temperature the refrigeration costs would go up substantially.  This is part of the risk-benefit tradeoff that was done during design.   There are eight ~3km cryo loops.</p>
<p>Burst disks for pressure relief are graphite machined so they will burst at a precise pressure differential.  When I was in the MRI magnet business two decades ago we specified the things to burst at 19-21 psi differential if memory serves.  Bigger burst disks mean bigger stainless pipes and flanges; these cost a lot more than the graphite disk.   Retrofitting bigger disks to existing magnets, if that is what&#8217;s planned, will be touchy because once can&#8217;t afford to get chips into the super-insulation.   One will have to warm up the magnets to increase the size of the disks because one has to bring the insulation vacuum space to atmosphere.</p>
<p>Again, one models the anticipated failure modes, determines the gaseous helium flow rates needed to keep over-pressure down, and sizes the pipes and burst disks with appropriate engineering safety factor.  Too big a disk and the cost is too high.   CERN had to borrow from their employees pension fund to get the funds needed to build LHC &#8211; the member states wouldn&#8217;t increase their contributions enough to fund it otherwise.   Cpst containment was VERY important.</p>
<p>The 5 TeV energy for the initial run was chosen because all of the sectors exceeded the field needed for this energy in sector by sector tests.  All the magnets trained to fields above those needed for 7 TeV at acceptance, but some relaxed at room temperature or during installation.</p>
<p>I am sure CERN will work hard to determine what caused the interconnect to fail this time rather than during previous excursions to similar currents.</p>
<p>Using steel magnets one would need a ring ~150 km in circumference for this energy.   The LHC tunnel was dug for LEP so only the enlarged detector caverns were needed WRT civil construction.    Superconducting magnets are the only solution for hadron machines at these energies.</p>
<p>The next machine, if built, will be a linear collider.  The larger international effort plans to use superconducting RF cavities to accelerate electrons and positrons.  <a href="http://www.linearcollider.org/cms/?pid=0" rel="nofollow">http://www.linearcollider.org/cms/?pid=0</a><br />
The smaller effort, CLIC at CERN,  works with room temperature RF.   <a href="http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/188858/" rel="nofollow">http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/188858/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Count Iblis</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44586</link>
		<dc:creator>Count Iblis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:28:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44586</guid>
		<description>Did the physicists neglect volume 1 of the &quot;Book of Physics&quot;, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0112031&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;end of page one and top of page 2 of this article?&lt;/a&gt; :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did the physicists neglect volume 1 of the &#8220;Book of Physics&#8221;, see <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0112031" rel="nofollow">end of page one and top of page 2 of this article?</a> <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: none of the above</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44578</link>
		<dc:creator>none of the above</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:40:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44578</guid>
		<description>One shouldn&#039;t be too pessimistic. They have all the spares necessary to do the replacements, and 5 months to do them. They&#039;ve already shut down the North Area fixed target program so that they could do the projected maintenance on the injection chain starting two months early, with a view to moving the starting date for LHC running from June to April, next year.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One shouldn&#8217;t be too pessimistic. They have all the spares necessary to do the replacements, and 5 months to do them. They&#8217;ve already shut down the North Area fixed target program so that they could do the projected maintenance on the injection chain starting two months early, with a view to moving the starting date for LHC running from June to April, next year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ObsessiveMathsFreak</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44585</link>
		<dc:creator>ObsessiveMathsFreak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:07:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44585</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;ObsessiveMathsFreak, sure there’s an alternative: using weaker conventional magnets, paying more for electricity, and tripling or quadrupling the circumference of the LHC!&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Expensive I know, but if managing superconducting magnets at this scale proves to be beyond our feasible capability, perhaps these measures should ultimately be considered when building the next big particle accelerator. Lost time costs money as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>ObsessiveMathsFreak, sure there’s an alternative: using weaker conventional magnets, paying more for electricity, and tripling or quadrupling the circumference of the LHC!</p></blockquote>
<p>Expensive I know, but if managing superconducting magnets at this scale proves to be beyond our feasible capability, perhaps these measures should ultimately be considered when building the next big particle accelerator. Lost time costs money as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wb</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44584</link>
		<dc:creator>wb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:00:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44584</guid>
		<description>The report notes that there are sufficient magnets to replace the damaged magnets.  From the installation schedule just completed the change-out time  can be accurately estimated.  So why isn&#039;t that time given in the report?  The report notes that the beam tubes have been contaminated to a limited but not known distance.  This certainly adds an unknown delay. Presumably there is a procedure and plan already to clean the beam tubes.  It would be good to make these known beyond the CERN inner circle.
It seems clear that the pressure relief system did not work as well as planned; hence the requirement for an upgrade.  Hopefully these can be upgraded without warming the undamaged sectors.  It seems that quench heaters behaved well, although the conclusion of upgrading the protection system, may suggest that some heaters were triggered unnecessarily; still better safe than very sorry.
The fact that the other sectors had been run at high power without incident is good news suggesting that the bad connection is singular or such connections are limited to sector 3-4.  Thermally cycling the entire ring is undesirable and adds downtime.
Overall the report is useful to the general HEP community, but many questions are left unanswered.  To be sure CERN management does not want to specify a repair duration, yet it could have been more forthcoming about a lower bound for remedies.
When one considers that the storied energy in the magnet system is of order 10 GJ (not including the cryogenics), it does not take much to cause considerable damage.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The report notes that there are sufficient magnets to replace the damaged magnets.  From the installation schedule just completed the change-out time  can be accurately estimated.  So why isn&#8217;t that time given in the report?  The report notes that the beam tubes have been contaminated to a limited but not known distance.  This certainly adds an unknown delay. Presumably there is a procedure and plan already to clean the beam tubes.  It would be good to make these known beyond the CERN inner circle.<br />
It seems clear that the pressure relief system did not work as well as planned; hence the requirement for an upgrade.  Hopefully these can be upgraded without warming the undamaged sectors.  It seems that quench heaters behaved well, although the conclusion of upgrading the protection system, may suggest that some heaters were triggered unnecessarily; still better safe than very sorry.<br />
The fact that the other sectors had been run at high power without incident is good news suggesting that the bad connection is singular or such connections are limited to sector 3-4.  Thermally cycling the entire ring is undesirable and adds downtime.<br />
Overall the report is useful to the general HEP community, but many questions are left unanswered.  To be sure CERN management does not want to specify a repair duration, yet it could have been more forthcoming about a lower bound for remedies.<br />
When one considers that the storied energy in the magnet system is of order 10 GJ (not including the cryogenics), it does not take much to cause considerable damage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seth Zenz</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44577</link>
		<dc:creator>Seth Zenz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:18:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44577</guid>
		<description>ObsessiveMathsFreak, sure there&#039;s an alternative: using weaker conventional magnets, paying more for electricity, and tripling or quadrupling the circumference of the LHC!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ObsessiveMathsFreak, sure there&#8217;s an alternative: using weaker conventional magnets, paying more for electricity, and tripling or quadrupling the circumference of the LHC!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lab Lemming</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44576</link>
		<dc:creator>Lab Lemming</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:30:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44576</guid>
		<description>Well of course they need a lot of electric heating if they flood the entire joint with liquid helium.  That stuff is cold!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well of course they need a lot of electric heating if they flood the entire joint with liquid helium.  That stuff is cold!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ObsessiveMathsFreak</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44575</link>
		<dc:creator>ObsessiveMathsFreak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:55:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44575</guid>
		<description>Is there no other alternative to supercooled magnets? If every hiccup takes six weeks to repair, it could be well worth looking into more robust methods of guiding those protons.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there no other alternative to supercooled magnets? If every hiccup takes six weeks to repair, it could be well worth looking into more robust methods of guiding those protons.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LHC status report &#171; Peculiar Velocity</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44574</link>
		<dc:creator>LHC status report &#171; Peculiar Velocity</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 06:34:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44574</guid>
		<description>[...] Ben Lillie    John, at Cosmic Variance, points to the report on the accident at the LHC. He wrote a nice summary, to which I don&#8217;t have much to add. Bottom line: it was bad, with up to 29 magnets needing [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Ben Lillie    John, at Cosmic Variance, points to the report on the accident at the LHC. He wrote a nice summary, to which I don&#8217;t have much to add. Bottom line: it was bad, with up to 29 magnets needing [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam A.</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44573</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam A.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:42:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44573</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s not like we&#039;ve never used super conducting magnets before.  At Fermilab, the magnets also must be cooled by liquid helium, so the difficulties weren&#039;t unexpected.  However,  it is true that every experiment poses its own challenges and that the LHC magnets are more complicated then normal due to having two beams of protons.  In addition, the first time everything is hooked up, it&#039;s always possible that someone made a mistake - you do everything you can to check multiple times, but with thousands of magnets, it&#039;s always possible for something to slip by - the latest emails assert that there was a problem with the connection between two magnets which lead to this much larger problem.

Near the beginning of Run II at the Tevatron, there was a much more rapid abort of the beam than had been anticipated.  The control systems that steer the beam safely out of the detector couldn&#039;t react fast enough, and the beam cut through a tungsten beam collimator.  After that, the accelerator division figured out what to do to make sure that never happened again.  Live and learn.

So damaging that many magnets is very bad, but remember that we are dealing with machines that very desperately want to destroy themselves.  The energy contained in the magnetic field of the magnets is immense - an improperly handled quench can melt the coils of the magnet.  Rotating beams aren&#039;t stable - they are always trying to expand their radius and tiny imperfections in the magnets (that the beam passes many, many times per second) make the deviations of the beam impossible to calculate a priori. Just remember to keep all of this in perspective - while every one hoped it would be easy, I don&#039;t think anyone expected it to be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not like we&#8217;ve never used super conducting magnets before.  At Fermilab, the magnets also must be cooled by liquid helium, so the difficulties weren&#8217;t unexpected.  However,  it is true that every experiment poses its own challenges and that the LHC magnets are more complicated then normal due to having two beams of protons.  In addition, the first time everything is hooked up, it&#8217;s always possible that someone made a mistake &#8211; you do everything you can to check multiple times, but with thousands of magnets, it&#8217;s always possible for something to slip by &#8211; the latest emails assert that there was a problem with the connection between two magnets which lead to this much larger problem.</p>
<p>Near the beginning of Run II at the Tevatron, there was a much more rapid abort of the beam than had been anticipated.  The control systems that steer the beam safely out of the detector couldn&#8217;t react fast enough, and the beam cut through a tungsten beam collimator.  After that, the accelerator division figured out what to do to make sure that never happened again.  Live and learn.</p>
<p>So damaging that many magnets is very bad, but remember that we are dealing with machines that very desperately want to destroy themselves.  The energy contained in the magnetic field of the magnets is immense &#8211; an improperly handled quench can melt the coils of the magnet.  Rotating beams aren&#8217;t stable &#8211; they are always trying to expand their radius and tiny imperfections in the magnets (that the beam passes many, many times per second) make the deviations of the beam impossible to calculate a priori. Just remember to keep all of this in perspective &#8211; while every one hoped it would be easy, I don&#8217;t think anyone expected it to be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: not_entirely_surprised</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44583</link>
		<dc:creator>not_entirely_surprised</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:54:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44583</guid>
		<description>During my days at CERN I had a chance to interact with the magnet engineering division. We are talking almost 15 years ago, early days of the LHC project. Back then these folks thought that we (the physicists) had gone nuts, their reaction to the technical specs they were being asked to deliver. This is a quote from the division head at the time, dropped during a candid conversation. I am hoping things have changed in the interim, making this the first and last of such episodes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>During my days at CERN I had a chance to interact with the magnet engineering division. We are talking almost 15 years ago, early days of the LHC project. Back then these folks thought that we (the physicists) had gone nuts, their reaction to the technical specs they were being asked to deliver. This is a quote from the division head at the time, dropped during a candid conversation. I am hoping things have changed in the interim, making this the first and last of such episodes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James G</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44571</link>
		<dc:creator>James G</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 01:04:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44571</guid>
		<description>^^ obviously I meant -273 centigrade :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>^^ obviously I meant -273 centigrade <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James G</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44572</link>
		<dc:creator>James G</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 01:03:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44572</guid>
		<description>Hey, who would have thought it, the first discovery of the LHC - reasons why pressure relief devices need to be really really great when you&#039;re dealing with near -273 kelvin .

On a more optimistic note, this is good news, since it&#039;s gonna trake me another year or so to develop my ground-breaking science that saves the world theory.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, who would have thought it, the first discovery of the LHC &#8211; reasons why pressure relief devices need to be really really great when you&#8217;re dealing with near -273 kelvin .</p>
<p>On a more optimistic note, this is good news, since it&#8217;s gonna trake me another year or so to develop my ground-breaking science that saves the world theory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ellipsis</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/comment-page-1/#comment-44592</link>
		<dc:creator>Ellipsis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:17:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/16/delay-for-the-lhc/#comment-44592</guid>
		<description>Hi Sili,

Yes, that&#039;s true -- hopefully the unions will agree that getting needed assistance at a critical time will be more likely to save their jobs than refusing it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Sili,</p>
<p>Yes, that&#8217;s true &#8212; hopefully the unions will agree that getting needed assistance at a critical time will be more likely to save their jobs than refusing it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk

Served from: blogs.discovermagazine.com @ 2012-02-14 16:04:09 -->
