1 / 6

MD on nominal collimator settings

MD on nominal collimator settings R.W. Assmann , R. Bruce, F. Burkart , M. Cauchi , D. Deboy , L. Lari , E. Metral , N. Mounet , S. Redaelli , A. Rossi, B. Salvant , G. Valentino, D. Wollmann. Motivation and goal. Presently running with relaxed collimator settings

darva
Download Presentation

MD on nominal collimator settings

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. MD on nominal collimator settings • R.W. Assmann, R. Bruce, F. Burkart, M. Cauchi, D. Deboy, L. Lari, E. Metral, N. Mounet, S. Redaelli, A. Rossi, B. Salvant, G. Valentino, D. Wollmann

  2. Motivation and goal • Presently running with relaxed collimator settings • Why go to tighter settings? • Higher predicted cleaning efficiency => higher intensity can be tolerated • Smaller gaps in the whole hierarchy => a smaller aperture can be protected, and thus a smaller β* can be used • Goal of MD: • Drive collimators to nominal 3.5 TeV settings and continue towards nominal 7 TeV settings • Check cleaning performance with loss maps • While the collimators are moved, monitor tune shifts in the background • Two fills used

  3. Results from first fill • B1 collimators driven to nominal 3.5 TeV settings • Tried to push further towards nominal 7 TeV settings in mm (TCP at 4 sigma at 3.5 TeV) • Hierarchy breakdown observed when moving in secondary collimators • New tight settings with larger retraction between primary and secondary invented on the spot to keep hierarchy • These settings successfully qualified with loss maps • B2 stayed at nominal 3.5 TeV settings. Qualified successfully with loss maps

  4. Results from second fill • Pushed B2 further in towards nominal 7 TeV settings. Could push further than B1, but had to retract secondary collimators by 0.3 σ to keep hierarchy. Successfully qualified with loss maps. • Kept B1 at nominal 3.5 TeV settings and made loss maps. Hierarchy breakdown observed! B1 nominal B2 nominal

  5. Impedance measurements • Tune shifts (few 1e-4) observed when moving in and out groups of collimators • Preliminary estimate: transverse impedance from vertical tune shifts 4-9 MΩ/m • Ongoing analysis to compare with predictions • Measured signals noisy. New measurements with transverse damper off useful Impedance team

  6. Achieved improvements • Local cleaning inefficiency in Q8 downstream of IR7 improved by about an order of magnitude with tight settings (though increase at Q7 – showers?) • We can squeeze more at IPs when collimators closer to beam. Smaller β* possible. • Further analysis needed for final conclusions. Can we move in TCTs? D. Wollmann Tight settings Nominal settings • Is it possible to operate with tight settings in physics fills? Impedance? Life time?

More Related