W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07  MD goals  Experimental procedure  HER-only x & y scans + high-current extrapolation  [LER only X & y scans] + high-current.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Dec/02/04 Su DongCaltech Trigger/DAQ/Online workshop1 Level 1 Trigger: Introduction L1 trigger objects and strategy Implementation features L1 composition.

Advertisements

IP angle scan Results Martin Simard Silke Nelson Mike Kelsey.

Recent observations of collective effects at KEKB H. Fukuma, J. W. Flanagan, S. Hiramatsu, T. Ieiri, H. Ikeda, T. Kawamoto, T. Mitsuhashi, M. Tobiyama,

June 28, 2004 BBBTF Steven H. Robertson McGill University, Institute of Particle Physics 1 Beam Background Simulation with B A B AR with B A B AR June.

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 5 May 06 Slide 1 Online DCH background analysis  Compare on-line DCH background ratio to Martin's offline analysis  Can we identify.

LER thermal outgassing is back again with us Significant increase in East Diamond signal since May 12, ~3 pm due to thermal outgassing in two pumps VP3044,

W. KozaneckiMCC AP meeting, 8 Mar 07  MD goals  Experimental procedure  HER-only x & y scans + high-current extrapolation  [LER only X & y scans +

W. KozaneckiPEP-II MAC meeting, Dec 04Slide 1 Run-4 Beam-beam Performance Summary  Time evolution of beam currents, spot sizes, tunes & luminosity.

Initial rough Background comparisons between Run5 and Run 4 Guy Wormser LAL Orsay.

PEP-II B Factory Machine Status and Upgrades John T. Seeman for the PEP-II Staff SLAC DOE Site Review April 9, 2003.

W. KozaneckiMD planning meeting, 20 Jan 04 Background characterization strategy  MD goals  Background sources  Operational procedures  Open questions.

1 IR Vacuum M. Sullivan MAC Review Jan , 2006 M. Sullivan for the Machine Advisory Committee Review January 18-20, 2006 IR Vacuum.

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 19 Mar 04 Separating the luminosity background from the non-colliding beam-gas contribution  Principle  the problem  the beam-gas.

June 2-4, 2004 DOE HEP Program Review 1 M. Sullivan for the PEP-II Team DOE High Energy Physics Program Review June 2-4, 2004 PEP-II Status and Plans.

W. KozaneckiPEP-II MAC Review, 9-11 Oct 03 Beam-beam: Experimental Status  Introduction: PEP-II collision parameters & recent performance  Interplay.

MCC meeting, 2 May 03W. Kozanecki Current-dependence of PEP-II beam sizes Current-dependence of PEP-II beam sizes as measured on 30 Apr 03, after moving.

Super-B Factory Workshop January 19-22, 2004 IR Upgrade M. Sullivan 1 PEP-II Interaction Region Upgrade M. Sullivan for the Super-B Factory Workshop Hawaii.

M. WeaverPEP-II MAC Review,15-17 Nov’07  Operational issues  radiation aborts  background monitoring  Background extrapolations  model comparisons.

MDI meeting, Nov First look at Transient Recorder data Livio Piemontese Stan Ecklund and Mark Petree have installed – in the IR2 alcove – a 32.

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 16 Jan 2004 BaBar-wide Background monitoring  Motivation  institutionalize...  through a weekly report to PEP-II/BBR meeting.

PEP-II Status and Outlook John T. Seeman For the PEP-II Team SLAC EPAC Meeting June 12, 2003.

Beam-beam studies for Super KEKB K. Ohmi & M Tawada (KEK) Super B factories workshop in Hawaii Apr

CESR Beam-Beam Effects at CESR Mark A. Palmer Cornell University July 14, 2001.

1 IR NEG heating M. Sullivan MAC Review Dec , 2004 M. Sullivan Machine Advisory Committee Review December 13-15, 2004 IR NEG Heating and Upgrade.

Trickle Injection Overview Background Injection is necessary to refill beam “buckets” which have lost charge. A particular bucket is targeted for each.

W. KozaneckiMCC AP meeting, 24 Apr 06 Slide 1 Using the gas-induced beam blowup to measure vertical IP beam sizes  Principle  heat PR02 VP8020.

W. KozaneckiMCC AP meetiing, 20 May 04 Serendipitous measurement of beam-beam tune shift in the LER  Principle  measure colliding tunes (tune tracker.

Boost Analysis Status Matt Weaver MDI Meeting March 31, 2006.

-brief report of October runs and some inputs for the Nov/Dec planning – Nobuhiro Terunuma, KEK, ATF ATF session on LCWS13, Tokyo Univ., Nov. 13, 2013.

Future Very High Luminosity Options for PEP-II John T. Seeman For the PEP-II Team e+e- Factories Workshop October 13-16, 2003.

W. KozaneckiMCC AP meeting, 29 July 04  Goal: measure the luminosity degradation associated with  parasitic crossings  horizontal crossing angle  Principle.

1 Luminosity monitor and LHC operation H. Burkhardt AB/ABP, TAN integration workshop, 10/3/2006 Thanks for discussions and input from Enrico Bravin, Ralph.

W. KozaneckiIR summary, BES-III workshop Interaction Region: a terse summary  Accelerator issues  Parameter comparison with PEP-II/KEKB  IR layout 

Draft HPS Run Plan March 30, Next Steps Beamline Setup Trigger Commissioning Beam Stability Studies SVT Commissioning Data Taking Checking the.

Experimental background at the presence of pressure rise in RHIC Angelika Drees, Ubaldo Iriso-Ariz RHIC How to measure collision rates Vacuum and collision.

MDI meeting, March 19, 2004 Categorizing radiation aborts Livio Piemontese When something really bad happens to the beams, they are aborted. An optimized.

M. WeaverPEP-II MAC Review, Dec 04  Operational issues  radiation aborts  radiation-dose and background monitoring  Background characterization.

J. Turner 02/07/05 SLAC PEPII Accelerator Physics LER WIGGLER PLAN J. Turner, M. Donald, M. Sullivan, U. Wienands, J. Yocky Motivation and Concerns Details.

‘BBA’ Goals Understand BPM performance –validate use for precision optics tests –justify & specify hardware/software upgrades Beam – Based ‘Alignment’

R. Assmann - LHCCWG Two Beam Operation R.W. Aßmann LHCCWG Acknowledgements to W. Herr, V. Previtali, A. Butterworth, P. Baudrenghien, J. Uythoven,

D. Still-FNAL/Tevatron HALO '03 Tevatron Collider II Halo Removal System Dean Still Fermilab Tevatron Department 5/21/2003 Motives for the Collider Run.

ILC MDI workshop January 6-8, 2004 PEP-II IR M. Sullivan 1 Interaction Region of PEP-II M. Sullivan for the ILC MDI workshop January 6-8, 2005.

First Collision of BEPCII C.H. Yu May 10, Methods of collision tuning Procedures and data analysis Luminosity and background Summary.

August 4-5, 2004 PEP-II Post Run 4 Review 1 M. Sullivan PEP-II Post Run 4 Review August 4-5, 2004 IR Summary and Issues.

Comparing Luminosity Scans and Profile Monitor Results The size of the overlap of the two beams can be calculated from the individual beam sizes using:

14/1/2011 LHC Lumi days - J. Wenninger 1 IP positions and angles, knowledge and correction Acknowledgments: W. White, E. Calvo J. Wenninger BE-OP-LHC.

1 Run7 startup M. Sullivan MAC Review Nov , 2007 M. Sullivan for the PEP-II Team Machine Advisory Committee Review November 15-17, 2007 Run 7 Startup.

M. WeaverB-Factory Operations Review April 24, 2006 BaBar Backgrounds Matt Weaver B-Factory Operations Review April 24, 2006.

Beam Physics Issue in BEPCII Commisionning Xu Gang Accelerator physics group.

12/16/03Tev BPM requirements1 Tevatron BPM requirements Mike Martens.

William Lockman UC Santa Cruz May 6, 2005MDI meeting G4 simulation: status and validation strategy Goals Contributors Status Needed plots Future tasks.

9 October 2003S. DeBarger PEP-II Vacuum Status PEP-II Machine Advisory Committee.

November 16-18, 2004 Belle High Luminosity Workshop 1 M. Sullivan High Luminosity workshop (HL6) November 16-18, 2004 IR Vacuum Summary and Issues.

Y.Papaphilippou Thanks to

Luminosity monitor and LHC operation

presented by W. Kozanecki (CEA-Saclay) for the BaBar - PEPII MDI group

Firmware Update 29/03/2017 Rebecca Ramjiawan.

John T. Seeman DOE PEP-II Operations Review April 26, 2006

Beam-beam limits: MD proposal

BBBTF: where do we go from here? – a personal viewpoint -

Machine Background Status & issues in BaBar/PEP-II

Weekend Summary Squirted N2 at 3027 under various conditions

Trickle Background Investigation

Beam spot size measurements

T2K Run8 MUMON Summary.

Long term projections summary

To Do list, open items as of 10-Feb \ Study threshold dependence on bunch length (Just changed Vrf to 4.5.

Background characterization: MD plan

Luminosity performance comparison: 5-6 Jun vs. 23 Dec 03

Impact of orbit perturbations on luminosity calibrations

Presentation transcript:

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07  MD goals  Experimental procedure  HER-only x & y scans + high-current extrapolation  [LER only X & y scans] + high-current extrapolation MD report: IP aperture scans P. Grenier, W. Kozanecki & M. Weaver + S. Ecklund's watchful eyes!

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07  Quantify Babar background sensitivity to IP x & y angles for  single beams (HER & LER separately, moderate currents)  collisions (moderate currents, then high currents) and determine the optimum angles (from the background viewpoint) and determine the optimum angles (from the background viewpoint)  Cross-calibrate  LIPP & HIPP BPMs  Babar luminous & boost angles against support-tube (ST) BPMs against support-tube (ST) BPMs  Determine LER IP angles  center of luminosity monitor  absolute angles (from ST BPMs) at moderate current  reference angles (from HIPP & LIPP), corrected for high-current operation MD goals

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 Locations of the IP BPMs & neutron monitors Neutron_bckw_1 Neutron_forw_1 Neutron_forw_2 CsI 7 LIPP BPM Support-tube (ST) BPM HIPP BPM LIPP BPM

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 (Intended)Measurement Sequence (Intended) Measurement Sequence  Setup  colliding beams, offset by-2 patterns at 300 mA ea.  Single-beam scans: Babar on  HER  XP scan, then YP 300 mA, offset pattern  with XP & YP at optimum, raise I H as high as it will go, to measure current-dependence of support-tube (ST) - L/HIPP correlation  LER  XP scan, then YP 300 mA, offset pattern  with XP & YP at optimum, raise I L until ST BPMs saturated  Luminosity-monitor scans: Babar on  YP(e + ) scan attempted; failed bec. IP Multiknob fbk not functional  Current-dependence of ST-L/HIPP correlation in collision  most likely different from single-beam (heat from both beams)  Background high current: XP(e - ), YP(e + ), XP(e + ), YP(e - )  beam-beam tails behave diffferently from beam-gas

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 Experimental procedure  Operating procedure: general  manual scans, CRR plots vs time  monitor angles with ST BPMs, LIPP/HIPP orbit fits & monitoring fbks  monitor temps & vacuum throughout the scans  trickle, Babar on (incl. DAQ, with background-enriched trigger)  Initial setup: colliding beams, offset patterns, trickle, Babar on  bunch patterns  LER: by-2, 300 mA, buckets BPM bucket 3200  HER: by-2, 300 mA, buckets BPM bucket 200  set initial IP angles based in May 2005 lumi-monitor settings (exc. XP - )  LERXP = 9.25 mrad (ST BPMS)YP = mrad (ST BPMs)  HERXP = mrad (ST BPMS) YP = mrad (ST BPMs)

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 HER-only scans: current- & angle history HER currentXP_ST (e - ) YP_ST (e - ) YP_ST (e - ) during XP scan

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 HER-only scans: ST vs HIPP 300 mA XP (orbFit) vs. XP_ST XP (HIPP) vs. XP_ST YP (orbFit) vs. XP_ST YP (HIPP) vs. XP_ST

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 HER-only XP scan (1a) Normalized to HER-only prediction BW dmd, normalized TR-23 (EMC) E-collim (PR ) x 2.6 x 1.7 x 2.3

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 HER-only XP scan (1b) PR02 VP7032 PR02 VP8020 PR02 VP8029 CsI 3054

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 HER-only XP scan (2a) neutron fwd_1 SVT occpcy,  = 0 (E) SVT occpcy,  = 180 (W) x 2.7 x 3.6 x 11

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 HER-only XP scan (2b) PR02 VP7034 PR02 VP7042 PR02 VP8027 PR02 VGH_8027

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 HER-only YP scan (1a) neutron bwd_1CSi7052 Xcoll PR Ycoll PR

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 HER-only YP scan (1b) SVT occpcy,  = 0 (E) SVT occpcy,  = 180 (W)

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 HER-only YP scan (1c) PR02 VP8027 PR02 VP8020 PR02 VGH_8027

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 HER-only YP scan (2) neutron fwd_1 TR-23 (EMC) BW dmd, normalized Normalized to HER-only prediction

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 HER-only YP scan (3) neutron fwd_2CSi3054 PR02 VP8024

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 High-current extrapolation: HER-only HER current XP_ST (e - ) YP_ST (e - )

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 HER-only YP scan (4) E-collim (PR ) PR02 VP8029

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 High-current extrapolation (HER-only): ST vs HIPP XP (HIPP) vs. XP_ST (e + )YP (HIPP) vs. YP_ST (e + ) XP (HIPP)

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 High-current extrapolation (HER-only) (1a) TR-23 (EMC) BW dmd, normalized E-collim (PR ) Dynamic pressure

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 High-current extrapolation (HER-only): pressure sampling Thermal outgassing

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 High-current extrapolation (LER-only): angles vs. I XP_ST (e + ) YP_ST (e + ) LER current

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 High-current extrapolation (LER-only): ST vs. LIPP XP_ST (e + ) YP_ST (e + ) XP (YIPP)YP (LIPP)

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 To do…  Document usable scan ranges  first pass  supply tables of XP(LER/HER, ST BPMS) vs. time stamps  Detailed analysis for each subdetector  SVT occupancies, DCH current + occupancies, DIRC scalers & currents - use normalized quantities (2004) wherever possible  clean up data sets (e.g. remove spikes associated with LER LFB problems, with knob turning, etc)  how well does the 'family' concept hold?  Analyse temperatures  Analyse vacuum signatures Volunteers needed!

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 Summary (preliminary!)  Background sensitivity to single-beam aperture 300 mA  significant, may explain part of the discrepancy w/ Jan '04 norm'lztn;  is different, in both magnitude & optimum, for different subdetectors. The overall background optimum is incompatible with the SR load, at least in the HER (LER tba)  There may be subdetectors 'families' that depend on X/Y, HER/LER; within one scan, several sources are at work, depending on the direction of SR fans & local aperture restrictions.  Consistency between ST BPM's & LIPP/HIPP  much improved since run 5  degrades as current increases, esp. for LER XP  Luminosity monitor scan  could not be completed for lack of working IPO Multiknob feedback. Can the fast dither play the same role? We need to know the center!  may yield LER IP angles different from the single-beam optimum.  No reason to believe that this single-beam optimum will coincide with that for beam-beam tails: need to explore XP & YP optimization on both L and backgrounds under physics conditions!

W. KozaneckiMDI meeting, 9 Mar 07 Appendix: CRR plot files & data sets  PEP-II e-log: 5 March 2007 day + swing shift See also for scan times & ranges  CRR button files  BBR_BKG_LERIPORB.btn  BBR_BKG_HERIPORB.btn  BBR_ALL_BKG.btn  All data in PHYSICS_DATA:[pep2.char.05mar07]