Non-Particle Physics Applications of Antimatter

1
Non-Particle Physics Applications of Antimatter
Dr. Gerald P Jackson Hbar Technologies, LLC
gjackson_at_hbartech.com
2
Antimatter Applications
3
Antiproton Isotope Changes
D. Polster, et al., Phys. Rev. C 51, no. 3, 1167
(1995).
Total b yield is 38 with very diverse half-lives
4
Antiproton Cancer Therapy

• As in the case of proton cancer therapy, a 250
  MeV antiproton beam is needed.
• Because of the feature of PET isotope generation,
  it is proposed to treat patients positioned
  inside a PET scanner.
• Hypothesis For a 10cc tumor, approximately 1010
  antiprotons are required for induction of
  apoptosis (programmed cell death).
• If one only targets patients who cannot be
  treated by conventional methods, the number of
  potential U.S. customers is 550,000/year.

5
Antimatter for Homeland Security
D.J. Hughes, et. al., Delayed Neutrons from
Fission of U-235, Phys. Rev. 73, p.111 (1948).
1010 pbars 1 kg HEU _at_ 2 m with isotopic
identification is possible.
6
Variable Isp Possibility

• Sail concept may have the ability to adjust the
  exhaust velocity by varying the incident pbar
  energy or sail material
• Depositing the antiproton deep into the uranium
  may lead to multiple atom ejection resulting in
  increased thrust and reduced Isp
• Momentum is transferred by ingoing particle
• What is momentum from multi-atom burst?
• Mechanism causing burst is not known (coulomb
  explosion?)

7
Power Density from Antimatter
Photovoltaic Layer

• When a pbar annihilates against a proton, 0.3 nJ
  of potential energy (mass) is converted into
  three energetic charged pi-mesons (pions) and two
  neutron pions which quickly decay into
  gamma-rays. SP180 TJ/g
• As a result of fission, a total fragment kinetic
  energy of 0.024 nJ is released per fission (eff.
  8). SP60 GJ/g
• This is a geometry where the use of anti-lithium
  would be very applicable.

Uranium
Antimatter
Scintillator
8
Soon-to-be-Available Tool
Picture of the NASA HiPAT Penning trap This
magnetic bottle was designed for the storage and
transportation of 1012 antiprotons.
9
Hbar Tech Applications

• Nuclear Thermal Rocket Fuel Element RD funded
  by NASA
• Test nuclear fuel elements with depleted uranium
• Simulate fission by exposing elements to
  antiprotons
• Antiproton Storage and Transportation funded by
  DARPA
• Validate new vacuum technologies
• Validate new confinement concepts
• Deep-space Propulsion Design Validation funded
  by NASA
• Validate revolutionary propulsion system design
  wherein surface fissions of a depleted uranium
  sail create thrust, speeds up to 0.1c
• Active Interrogation for Smuggled Nuclear
  Materials interest from DHS
• Energetic pions from annihilations induce fission
  in nearby hidden uranium and plutonium
• Antiproton Medical Therapies
• Atomic and Nuclear Physics Basic Research

10
Main Injector Deceleration

• Last studies in 2000
• Decelerated to 3 GeV/c
• Limit was longitudinal bucket area shrinkage
• No power supply issues
• Since 2000, Hbar has developed an RF manipulation
  to eliminate bucket area shrinkage
• Estimate is that 2 GeV/c is easily attainable,
  and 1Gev/c is possible

11
Attaining Lower Momenta

• Main Injector deceleration and extraction up an
  existing carrier pipe into a dedicated facility
  housing a cooling ring capable of further
  momentum reductions.
• Above facility with a much smaller ring and
  employing a degrader to dramatically reduce the
  beam momentum injected into that smaller ring
• Attach a small deceleration/cooling ring to the
  racetrack accelerator outlined earlier
• Decelerate antiprotons up the high-energy end
  (ILC section from 0.6 to 8 GeV) of the Project-X
  linac and then steer them out into a dedicated
  cooling/deceleration ring

12
MI Deceleration Below 1 GeV/c
13
Momentum Range 0.5 to 9 GeV/c
14
AppendixSolid Hydrogen Target
15
Solid Hydrogen Target
Building and testing a prototype apparatus is a
nicely sized RD project that Hbar Tech would
like to pursue.
16
Goals of an RD Program

• Validate the technical feasibility of using a
  solid hydrogen target
• Determine the benefits and drawbacks of various
  geometries
• Knife edge
• Wire
• Heat shields coverage and mass requirements
• Cold beam pipe vs. room temperature beam pipe
• Estimate the cost of building an operational
  system
• Prove approach by placing a simple experimental
  system in the Recycler ring, where there is
  plenty of room in the lattice for such an
  installation.
• Test the use of both stochastic and electron
  cooling to control beam emittance and diffuse
  particles onto the solid hydrogen target.

17
1) Validate Technical Feasibility

• Hbar Technologies, LLC has a helium dewar with
  nitrogen shield that can hold the wire. The
  dewar has a beam port (see lower right portion of
  the picture to the right) for cold hydrogen gas
  injection and for the incident proton beam.
  There are also two ports for instrumentation
  feedthroughs.
• With nitrogen and helium supplied by Fermilab, a
  very inexpensive experimental platform is
  available to measure sublimation rates and solid
  target formation.

18
2) Geometry Tests

• While preliminary studies can be performed in the
  Hbar Tech dewar, the full battery of geometry
  tests should be performed in an experimental
  setup that is closer in constraints to an actual
  detector bore situation.
• Knife edge Studies Cooling channel requirements,
  heat shielding demands, and solid hydrogen target
  layer formation.
• Wire Studies Cooling strategies, heat shielding
  demands, and solid hydrogen target layer
  formation.

19
3) Estimate Cost

• One of the goals of the geometry tests (2) is to
  determine the trade-offs between helium
  consumption rate, required cryogenic
  infrastructure costs, and shielding mass and the
  effects of such trade-offs on initial and
  operational costs.
• For example, low amounts of heat shielding
  benefits event reconstruction, but increases the
  helium consumption rate.
• As another example, higher solid hydrogen target
  temperatures lowers the cost of cryogenic
  infrastructure, but increases the hydrogen vapor
  pressure which reduces the beam lifetime.

20
4) Recycler Tests

• These tests can be performed with a carbon fiber
  or carbon knife edge.
• Some issues to be resolved are diffusion control
  to set the luminosity, the effect of beam motion
  on spill structure and the possibility of
  active feedback to minimize such structure, and
  the achievability of high luminosities.
• An existing ion pump port can be used, wherein a
  plunging wire is moved toward and away from the
  beam utilizing either mechanical or
  electromagnetic positioning.
• If a small cryogenic test is desired, dewars
  placed in the MI-60 MVA drop can supply the
  necessary cryogens without imposing ODH
  requirements on the MI tunnel.

21
5) Cooling/Diffusion Tests

• Validation of cooling models to control the beam
  emittances and set the diffusion rate, and hence
  luminosity, can be performed experimentally.
• Both stochastic and electron cooling can be
  tested separately or together.
• With an installed solid hydrogen target, full
  beam energy antiproton induced sublimation can be
  tested, with direct measurement of the resultant
  vacuum background.

22
RD Program Costs

• The estimated MS budget for these RD elements
  are actually quite modest
• Validate technical feasibility 60,000 / 1 year
• Geometry tests 120,000 / 1 years
• Estimate cost none
• Recycler tests 120,000 / 1 year
• Cooling/diffusion tests 60,000 / 1 year
• The labor costs are much harder to estimate, and
  are really more a function of program scope. My
  guess is that a total of 4 FTEs are needed.
  Assume an average cost of 150,000 with benefits,
  per FTE per year, over 2 years.
• The total cost in this WAG guess is approximately
  1.6 million over 2 years. The first year could
  be as low as 200,000.