Project

General

Profile

2017-01-25-run-settings

Previous meeting ... Next meeting

We will meet at 4 pm UK time. For those at RAL we will be in the MICE meeting room in R1.

Phone:

http://mice.iit.edu/phonebridge.html

Actions

  • Jaroslaw: look at improved optics for 140 MeV/c
    • Currents distributed; to be tracked
  • Ao: look at required running time to get 100k good muons
    • Done; see slides
  • Ao: can we get emittance change across TKU to TKD using unmatched beam
    • Stands
  • Rogers: tidy up plots and run any new optics solutions
  • Rogers: do the trims in SSU
    • Stands

Discussion

1. Do we basically agree on the plan, i.e.:

At p = 140 MeV/c
  • beta = 200 mm
  • beta = 400 mm
  • beta = 800 mm
At p = 200 MeV/c
  • beta = 800 mm (approx smallest available)
At p = 240 MeV/c
  • beta ~ 1100 mm (approx smallest available)

2. Should we choose Ao's setting optimised for "unmatched beam" or "matched beam" for the beta = 200 mm setting at 140 MeV/c

Let's try not to regurgitate the point from last time...

  • Ao - we should take unmatched beam data with unmatched lattice; this gives us a measure of emittance reduction across the absorber with the best performing lattice
  • Jaroslaw - we should take unmatched beam data with matched lattice; this gives us an easier analysis for the higher beta function data; we can sample the lower beta function data; we can compare more easily to the solenoid data

3. Is there a better 200 MeV/c setting?

Notes

  • Jaroslaw posted some new currents - to be tracked
  • Ao estimated about 60 hours per cooling channel setting, assuming we take 200k good muons to allow 50 % efficiency for sampling; 80 hours per cooling setting with contingency; not including magnet alignment data.
    • This is assuming we take three emittance settings per cooling channel setting
    • At the moment looking at 24*5 + 16*15 i.e. about 360 hours of data taking; assuming we get some infill.
  • Discussion of diffuser; start with tight focussing option in 140 MeV/c to deal with diffuser issue?
  • Long discussion about how well matched we are. No agreement between Ao and Rogers; some plots uploaded
  • Discussion of whether we can do the analysis purely by beam sampling (and not changing magnet settings)
    • Chris R and Jaroslaw: we need to optimise the magnet currents for best transmission and cooling for a given focus at absorber
    • Ao: we set up one magnet current and then sit there; sample to get different focus at the absorber
  • Discussion of the proposed run plan; Jaroslaw agreed broadly with scheme, with 240 MeV/c setting as lowest priority and maybe 140 MeV/c 450 mm setting as highest priority; Ao had to leave so did not comment

Jan25_run_settings.pptx (1.6 MB) Liu, Ao, 25 January 2017 15:37

amplitude_ratio.png (9.12 KB) Rogers, Chris, 25 January 2017 16:35

amplitude_pdf.png (7.96 KB) Rogers, Chris, 25 January 2017 16:35

Screen_Shot_2017-01-25_at_10.46.09_AM.png (292 KB) Liu, Ao, 25 January 2017 16:46

bunch_x_px.png - "6 mm" setting (41.5 KB) Rogers, Chris, 25 January 2017 16:50

bunch_y_py.png - "6 mm" setting (42.7 KB) Rogers, Chris, 25 January 2017 16:50

bunch_x_px.png - "10 mm" setting (19 KB) Rogers, Chris, 25 January 2017 16:50

bunch_y_py.png - "10 mm" setting (18.7 KB) Rogers, Chris, 25 January 2017 16:50

6-140_M3-Test2.txt Magnifier (1.13 KB) Rogers, Chris, 25 January 2017 16:51

10-140_M3-Test2.txt Magnifier (1.13 KB) Rogers, Chris, 25 January 2017 16:51

Screen_Shot_2017-01-25_at_10.53.32_AM.png (244 KB) Liu, Ao, 25 January 2017 16:54