1 / 24

Global analysis of MTE and CT beams in PS and SPS

Global analysis of MTE and CT beams in PS and SPS. Inroduction Analysis of PS performance in 2010 for MTE and CT Analysis of SPS performance in 2010 for MTE and CT Programme of the coming days. S. Gilardoni, M. Giovannozzi, M. Newman. Introduction - I.

tad
Download Presentation

Global analysis of MTE and CT beams in PS and SPS

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. Global analysis of MTE and CT beams in PS and SPS • Inroduction • Analysis of PS performance in 2010 for MTE and CT • Analysis of SPS performance in 2010 for MTE and CT • Programme of the coming days S. Gilardoni, M. Giovannozzi, M. Newman MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  2. Introduction - I • Aim: quantitative comparison of MTE vs. CT in PS and SPS and correlation studies. • Approach: • PS • Evaluate extraction efficiency. This is obtained from the BCT for circulating and several BCTs in the TT2 transfer line. • Evaluate trapping efficiency, i.e., the amount of beam in each island normalised to the total intensity. This is obtained from a number of BCTs in TT2 capable of measuring intensity vs. time over the five extracted turns. • SPS • Evaluate transmission between different times in the cycle. MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  3. Introduction - II • Some comments: • The SPS RF experts suggested to use also the duty factor as figure-of-merit to understand the beam performance. It is defined as: • An analytical estimate for the duty factor for an MTE-generated spill with trapping efficiency x is given by: MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  4. Introduction - III • Some comments: • Even if the CT beam is generated differently with respect to the MTE, a trapping efficiency was defined as well. • Some of the plots will show the evolution with time of the key beam dynamics quantities. • Some of the plots will show the correlation between the beam dynamics quantities. MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  5. MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  6. Issues with the cross-calibration of the TT2-TT10 BCTs MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  7. CT beam CT beam MTE beam MTE beam

  8. CT beam CT beam MTE beam MTE beam MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  9. CT beam CT beam MTE beam MTE beam MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  10. CT beam CT beam MTE beam MTE beam

  11. CT beam CT beam MTE beam MTE beam MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  12. CT beam CT beam MTE beam MTE beam MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  13. CT beam CT beam MTE beam MTE beam MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  14. MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011 MTE beam

  15. CT beam CT beam MTE beam MTE beam MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  16. CT beam CT beam MTE beam MTE beam MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  17. MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011 MTE beam

  18. CT beam CT beam MTE beam MTE beam MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  19. CT beam CT beam MTE beam MTE beam MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  20. CT beam MTE beam MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  21. Some conclusions - I • Better correlation between two extractions for MTE (both trapping and duty factor). This is due to the relationship between trapping and duty cycle for MTE. • Second extraction always better than first one (trapping) for CT. It is a possible consequence of BFA PPM capabilities – suggested by Yannis). • Not so good correlation for duty factor of two extraction for CT. This implies that the shape of the spill can change between two extractions (BFA PPM capabilities?). • This means that the trapping fluctuations are on a longer time scale than two consecutive cycles. MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  22. Some conclusions - II • Bad MTE performance (huge fluctuations in injection flat bottom). Badly correlated with trapping (possibly correlated with trajectory fluctuations?) • Some correlation between transmission in SPS and trapping/duty factor from flat bottom up to front porch. Then rather uncorrelated for MTE. • Global transmission in SPS rather correlated with trapping: mostly dominated by results at front porch. MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  23. Programme of the coming days - I • Antoine: • Cross-check, verification, and generalisation of the code written by A. Franchi for the steering with DFAs in TT2. Test in the CCC tomorrow. • Help with analysis of trajectory stability taken last year • Clean up and generalisation of codes developed by E. Benedetto. • Massimo: • Transfer information from E. Benedetto on the tool to analyse the measurements in TT2-TT10-SPS (optics, dispersion, and trajectory stability). Analysis of trajectories data taken last year. • Antoine+Massimo: • Simulations of closure of the slow bump for MTE. MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

  24. Programme of the coming days - I • Simone: • Continue study of SEH31 jumping • Study closure of MTE slow bump • Myriam: • Complete MTE/CT comparison studies • Complete analysis of data taken with one missing PSB ring (simulating barrier bucket) • Complete analysis of stability test of tuning quadrupoles in the PS MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011

More Related