1 / 7

BGI status

BGI status. M. Sapinski 2013/02/06 Emittance Working Group. Run in 2013. Ion beam gave nice signal on both detectors on beam 2 Signal amplitude feedback working stable since January 29 th

calum
Download Presentation

BGI status

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BGI status M. Sapinski2013/02/06 Emittance Working Group

  2. Run in 2013 • Ion beam gave nice signal on both detectors on beam 2 • Signal amplitude feedback working stable since January 29th • After species change (protons in beam 2) there is still a nice signal in vertical detector (but not horizontal) M. Sapinski, Emittance WG

  3. Example 1: illustration of problem with amplitude feedback M. Sapinski, Emittance WG

  4. Example 2: what happens during the squeeze? The corrections/calibration is likely not correct here but at FT corrections are frozen, so something really happens to the beam. • Optics changes? • beam oscillations + MCP non-uniformities (enhancement)? M. Sapinski, Emittance WG

  5. Example 3: proton data Profile of a proton beam with emittance < 1 um at 4 TeV. There is still enough points per pixel. M. Sapinski, Emittance WG

  6. Example 3: proton data II M. Sapinski, Emittance WG

  7. Remarks/conclusions • I had no time yet to analyze the data in detail, so these are just some flashes. • Of course having nonuniform MCP is not helping, but proton data are taken with orbital bump of 1 mm and recalibrated accordingly. • What would help: • Shorter integration time (now 0.1s, processes happening in ms timescale) • Better noise filtering • More signal • Need to correlate these measurements with other beam parameters • Clear correlation with bunch length have been already observed. M. Sapinski, Emittance WG

More Related