Planning for ISIS User Run 2015/1a, 2015/1b

Date: 15:00, Wednesday March 18th (doodle poll results)
Location: RAL, CR11 (building R3, map)

Phone bridge

We will try for the usual phone bridge



  • ISIS run dates (scroll to the bottom of the page)
  • Magnet Commissioning in June
    • What is the expected operational cycle for magnet commissioning?
    • What is the "worst case" operational cycle for magnet commissioning?
    • How much data taking time can we expect (assuming magnet commissioning has priority)?
  • Operations status
    • Expected data rate and trigger

Detector Commissioning

  • Tracker data needs
    • Tracker hardware commissioning (Ed Overton)
      • Comment by email from ed overton: "It feels like we aren't making progress fast enough to converge in a month."
    • Tracker validation (Melissa Uchida)
  • TOF and Ckov data needs (Durga Rajaram)
  • EMR data needs (Francois Drielsma)
  • KL data needs
    • None
  • DAQ data needs
    • None

Beam based alignment of detectors

  • Tracker external alignment (Melissa Uchida)
  • Alignment to other detectors (Melissa Uchida)

Absorber-Full test

  • Absorber-full test (Chris Rogers)

Integrated diagnostic validation

  • Validation of track matching (Melissa Uchida)
  • Validation of particle identification (Celeste Pidcott)

Beamline data needs

  • Beamline pre-commissioning (Jaroslaw Pasternak)
  • Beamline commissioning (Jaroslaw Pasternak)

Cooling channel validation

  • Beam based alignment (Chris Rogers)
  • Optics validation (Jaroslaw Pasternak)

MICE physics programme...

  • MICE physics programme (Chris Rogers)

Prioritisation and plan

  • Anything missing from the list?
  • AOB


Chris Heidt
Dan Kaplan
Ryan Bayes
Steve Boyd
Celeste Pidcott
Mark Tucker
Pierrick Hanlet
Milorad Popovic
John Cobb
Ken Long

With reference to sections in Outline plan (version 1)


ACTION (Uchida): Improve analysis of tracker alignment in context of residual fields; improve estimate of magnitude of effect, degaussing procedure, use of beam momentum to constrain the residual fields effect.
ACTION (Rogers): Arrange review at the beginning of May
ACTION (Rogers): Add contingency
ACTION (Rogers): Estimate data rate with cooling channel magnets off
ACTION (Rogers): Estimate data rate with decay solenoid on vs off (for EMR scaling); refer to e.g. April runs

1.2 Magnet Commissioning

  • Spectrometer Solenoid
    • Pierrick: at lower currents you can do 2 ramps per day
    • Jaroslaw: May be doing E2 training only at the beginning
    • Agree with the numbers
  • Focus Coil
    • Quench + cool down on cryocoolers
    • Intervention to refill lHe on controlled access
    • Then continuing cool down to quench again
    • Agree with the numbers
  • Combined Training
    • Agree with the numbers

1.3 Operations Status

Assume maintenance day exists, during day shift

1.4 Data Rate Trigger

Assume data rate is 10 % at TOF2 with no fields; no one complains; review following April running

2.1 Tracker Hardware Commissioning

  • First weekend in April - unlikely to be ready, PRY interference causing too much intervention (uncabling, etc)
  • May be able to use longer cables to avoid some uncabling work

2.2 Tracker Validation

Has to come before tracker alignment

ACTION: revisit after April 28/29 run

2.3 TOF and Cerenkov

Cerenkov should be done in March/April running

2.4 EMR

Dan Kaplan, Milorad claim Decay Solenoid is factor 10

ACTION check decay solenoid data rate based on March/April runs

2.5 KL

No action

2.6 DAQ

No action

3.1 Tracker External

Request 6 days of contingency

Melissa shows us the residual fields
  • Field gradient 0.2 mT/m
  • r component at 15 cm 2.5e-5 after 1 degaussing cycle
DK: can we measure the fields?
  • MU: would be inside the PRY, use existing SS Hall probes
  • JHC: Ferromagnetic inclusions in the steel bore introduces some existing residual fields
    DK: should study how do we degauss the iron?
  • PH: May require retraining
    PK: What is the limit from the Hall probes?
  • 1-2 Gauss
  • can we scale momentum to constrain the effect of residuals
  • can we use degaussing to constrain the effect of residuals
    ACTION: get better residual fields analysis
    Not strong enough evidence to motivate moving the magnet commissioning start date back

Agree to the final sections
ACTION Rogers to add 50 % contingency to his stuff

  • PK: how do we check the data?
    Rogers: that is the physics shifter job
  • PK: activation study with beam stop closed?
    Boyd: still needs bureaucratic sign off by RAL

Updated by Rogers, Chris about 9 years ago ยท 30 revisions