Version 1 of the 2016/04 set.

I included three run sets, "low force", "intermediate force", "high force", grouped according to the force limit in the calculation (as shown in column S). I only expect one to be chosen, subject to discussion. I am sure this will not be the final scheme!

I can upload some plots/etc in the morning.

Quote from C. Rogers:
15 T is roughly
M1*FC < 18500 in solenoid mode
M1*FC < 28000 in flip mode

The muon beams at TOF1 are attached. Comments or questions welcome.

I attach a few files:

• Beam optics quantities from recent running for each sample provided by Ao; two files are provided, "data_summary.csv" is in simple columns format; data_summary.json is in json format. For each file I provide three sets of quantities; optics for "all events", optics for "events in +/- 10 MeV/c cut", optics for "events in +/- 5 MeV/c cut" of the peak.

• plots.tar.gz has plots of pz, x, y, px, py, r for each file; Black is "all events", Blue is "events in +/- 10 MeV/c cut", Green is "events in +/- 5 MeV/c cut.

G4BL deck for tracking added.

Preliminary talk slides.

Lattice file and tracking output for Jaroslaw's lattice

Attached - summary table of performance of various different lattices, along with performance plots (e.g. emittance vs z, etc). Based on tracking through a simple lattice, using MAUS.

As per point 16, but with 10x statistics (50k events per simulation run).

• transmission is the transmission between z=-2900 and 2900 (fractional)
• delta_emittance_absorber is the emittance change (fractional) between -100 and +100 mm. This is for ALL muons, i.e. no "good muon cut" was applied. This means it is not biased by scraping, but it is not an observable quantity.
• nominal_emittance is the nominal input emittance; where this is -1 Ao's 140 MeV/c beam was used. Else a matched beam with the given nominal emittance and pz = 140 MeV/c was used.
• delta_emittance_tracker is the emittance change from upstream tracker to downstream tracker, for good muons only.
• beta is optical beta function at the absorber.

Forces and currents are in there also.

New lattice from Ao.

Another setting from Ao...

Beta = 1000 mm setting from Jaroslaw

Plots to support previous entry

We also need to do some off-momentum alignment runs. The point is to scan momentum and look at the offset of the beam for different momentum particles. From 2016-03, we have following settings/rates (see entry 24 for meaning of each heading):

Run settings spreadsheet - most recent version

Spreadsheet to compare recent settings. Assimilation of v8, v11 and v12. Nothing new. Just that I found it easier to compare.

I did some head scratching on the difference between Ao and my simulations. One thing I noted was that I assume a 3 T field for the input beam, even when sometimes it is a bit less. Also, I made summary plots of performance. See the plots tarball.

One feature that I noted was that the lattice 1.1 was sometimes running very slowly and timing out - not sure why that was. So I ended up running with reduced statistics (5k instead of 50k in the input). I had better dig into the slow running. Even like this, some jobs ran for 30 mins and others for 150 mins, for no apparent reason. Something weird is going on.

Three new lattices from JP.

• 1 is for a 240 MeV/c beam;
• 2 and 3 are optimisations for the 140 MeV/c beam setting

For reference I also included the 1.2 setting on the plots.

Jaroslaw was interested in the comparison with 1.5 lattice (that we plan to run on Monday). I upload the same v16 plots but this time comparing with 1.5 as a reference.

I mudged around with my scripts a bit, approaching a "GA" type approach. I fire off loads of simulation runs with relatively low statistics and look at the resultant beta function at the AFC, emittance changes and transmission. I note under this model, the settings proposed by Ao are a bit off the optimum point... we can get same optical function at the absorber but with better transmission if we push FC up a bit.

• I start with a matched 6 mm emittance beam, 200 MeV/c with 5 MeV/c RMS, 1k muons
• I look at the transmission from upstream end of TKU to downstream end of TKD
• I look at the beta at z = 0
• I look at the change in emittance of good muons between tracker reference planes (fractional_)emittance_change_tracker)
• I look at the change in emittance of all muons across the absorber (fractional_emittance_change_absorber)
• I also include plots coloured by focus coil current, SSU force, match coil currents
• I put triangles indicating my simulated performance for Ao's three settings

OK I have tried my setting with higher FC current as suggested by Chris' analyses. I'm getting a bit worse transmission and less emittance reduction. So I think 56.2 is better than 80 A.

I ran a few more options through the full MC. The option

run_plans/MICE_User_Run_2016_04-v4.csv 9
    nominal momentum: 200.0 MeV/c
    currents
        EndCoil2_US: 205.86
        CenterCoil_US: 205.86
        EndCoil1_US: 205.86
        MatchCoil2_US: 216.4
        MatchCoil1_US: 243.85
        FocusCoil_US: 73.88
        FocusCoil_DS: 73.88
        MatchCoil2_DS: 0.0
        EndCoil1_DS: 205.86
        CenterCoil_DS: 205.86
        EndCoil2_DS: 205.86

has best performance but the force is illegal - 18.2 tonnes. I must have made a mistake (I checked on JHC's spreadsheet which is the reference I think). So next best is

run_plans/MICE_User_Run_2016_04-v4.csv 8
    nominal momentum: 200.0 MeV/c
    currents
        EndCoil2_US: 206.3
        CenterCoil_US: 206.3
        EndCoil1_US: 206.3
        MatchCoil2_US: 172.9
        MatchCoil1_US: 239.2
        FocusCoil_US: 56.2
        FocusCoil_DS: 56.2
        MatchCoil2_DS: 0.0
        EndCoil1_DS: 205.8
        CenterCoil_DS: 205.8
        EndCoil2_DS: 205.8
    forces
        SSU: 13.36475618
        FC: -12.1410265
        SSD: -1.74390804

I would run with this one...

Three things as a reminder:
1. (Just got off from the phone call with Chris)
208 A on ECE is fine;
2. Setting 2.2 was done with a mismatched beam, and a different requirement: I required the beam that is within Pz \in [195, 205] MeV/c to be cooled. As it turned out, it can't. But this setting should give the least heating for that slice of the beam;
3. It would be better if tracking with the realistic 200 MeV/c beam can be done for each 2.X setting. The beam can be found in the previous attachments.

BTW, Chris' setting 9 was indeed the best. What I saw was a better transmission with roughly the same emit. reduction.

I found the bug in the tools I was using to create the cloud of performance plots (note 35). I had neglected to include FCD in my force calculation. I attach the revised plots and Ao's setting looks to be in a pretty good place.

Updated

Jaroslaw's setting plots.

Final version of the magnet current spreadsheet - for posterity