1. Summary of LARP Magnets 1 Summary of LARP magnets (incomplete & to be checked) G. Ambrosio Conductor Video Mtg. April 20, 2015

2. Summary of LARP Magnets 2 Criteria for inclusion Only magnets with shell-type coils (no racetracks) Only magnets with new coils — HQ02 had coil 15 previously tested in HQM04, so I did not put HQM04 in the plot No magnets with known issues — Ex: TQS01 (bronze poles) — Ex: HQ01 (reaction cavity was too small) Only magnets tested at 1.9K or 2.2K — Note: some TQ mirrors may be missing… Color code: — green: %SSL > 88% at 4.5K and 1.9K — orange: %SSL > 88% at 4.5K ~no current increase at 1.9K — red: stable current < 70% SSL at 1.9K

3. Summary of LARP Magnets 3 J_sc @ 1.9K vs. filament size

4. Summary of LARP Magnets 4 Impact of Jc (12T 4.2K) Possible explanation of TQS03 – TQS02 performance: TQS02 had higher Jc than TQS03 But HQ02 had Jc higher than TQS02 and performed very well HQ02TQS02TQS03 strand diammm0.7780.7 # of subelements108/12754/61108/127 Jc @ 12T 4.2K w/o self-fieldA/mm 2 2797-273727242558

5. Summary of LARP Magnets 5 J_sc @ 1.9K vs. filament size MQXF w 108/127 is in safe territory

6. Summary of LARP Magnets 6 J_sc @ 1.9K vs. filament size 0 failures / 18 coils 1 failure / 13 coils

7. Summary of LARP Magnets 7 Scaling to MQXF Scaling to MQXF Q1 & Q3 for US-HiLumi Scaling factors: Coils # = 80 MQXF coil volume / LQ coil volume = 3.9 Linear interpolation between 50 and 70 um 50 um56 um70 um LARP coils 0/181/13 MQXF by coil number 01.86.2 MQXF by coil volume 07.224 Average of 3 methods (0, 1.8, 7.2) = 3

8. Summary of LARP Magnets 8 Min RRR vs. Cu/Non_Cu