1 / 18

Commissioning status and plans

Commissioning status and plans. Shinji Machida o n behalf of the beam commissioning team ASTeC /STFC/RAL 12 August 2010. Beam time. Run #1: 20-23 June 2010 Run #2: 12-15 July 2010 Run #3: 27-29 July 2010 Run #4: 3-6 August 2010 end of 4 sector Run #5: 13-15 August 2010 full ring

beata
Download Presentation

Commissioning status and plans

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. Commissioning status and plans Shinji Machida on behalf of the beam commissioning team ASTeC/STFC/RAL 12 August 2010

  2. Beam time • Run #1: 20-23 June 2010 • Run #2: 12-15 July 2010 • Run #3: 27-29 July 2010 • Run #4: 3-6 August 2010 end of 4 sector • Run #5: 13-15 August 2010 full ring • (Run #6: 18-24 August 2010) rf commissioning • Run #7: 30 August – 2 September 2010 rf available • Run #8: 7-10 September • Run #9: 15-18 September • Run #10: 24-26 September • Run #11: 2-3 October • Run #12: 10-13 October

  3. Brief status • At the end of Run #6 (24 August) • Ready for acceleration. • At the end of Run #5 (15 August), • A full lattice which accepts a fixed momentum beam from 10.5+a to 20.5-b [MeV/c]. • Know time of flight in that momentum range. • At the end of Run #4 (6 August),almost done • Know a way to injection a beam for some equivalent momentum range (+/- 10%). • Measure cell tune vs relative momentum.

  4. Overview (from upstream) • ALICE and Injection line (Bruno Muratori, et.al.) • Injection area • Orbit into the septum • Septum mapping and (x, x’) at exit • Kicker calibration • A beam in four sector • Tune measurement • Time of flight measurement • Optics matching.

  5. Injection area (1)orbit into septum • Established a way to measure (x, x’) at the entrance of septum. • Beam orbit at the last two quadrupole in the injection line (Q17, Q18) is within ~1 mm in horizontal, that is within error bar. • In vertical, a few mm depending on tuning upstream. • In vertical, steering before the septum (V-06) is adjusted to increase a beam in the ring.

  6. Injection area (2)Septum mapping • (x, x’) as a function of strength is reproduced. It is consistent with July data, although June data looks different. (x, x’) at entrance might be different in June. • For example, x’ vs septum setting below, • S1: 22 June • S2: 3 Aug • S3: 14 July • S4: ignore.

  7. Injection area (3)(x, x’) at septum exit • (x, x’) at the exit of septum is not as designed. • Change of strength and rotation is not enough to get (x, x’) by Stephan or Scott. • Instead, David calculated kicker strength assuming (x, x’) given.

  8. Injection area (4)kicker calibration • Polarity of kicker 1 and 2 is determined. K1 kicks outward and K2 kicks inward. • Calibration between kicker setting voltage and CT current is measured. • Kicker waveform need to be optimized. • Yellow: septum • Red: kicker1 • Blue: kicker2 • Green: beam

  9. A beam in four sector • A beam went back through 4 sector with more reasonable settings. • QD/QF = 260/220 A, which should give 18.5 MeV/c equivalent beam. • Nominal kicker 1 and almost zero kicker 2, which is consistent with David’s calculation.

  10. Tune measurement (1) • With nominal setting of QD/QF=260/220A, horizontal tune is 0.15-0.18, which is close to the design value 0.177 (hardedge) at 18.5 MeV/c. • Tune with +/-5%, 10% setting was not accurate. Later found out that continuous beam loss within 4 sector happened. • Tune measurement in June may have the same problem, namely beam loss.

  11. Tune measurement (2) • Horizontal position at 7 consecutive cells.

  12. Time of flight (1) • Measured BPM signal of E07-EBPM-01 and E23-EBPM-01 directly. • Signal is much lower than BPM in ALICE, which is strip line type. EMMA’s one is button. • With the scope we used, which is 10 GS (100 ps sampling), difficult to see change of ToF with various lattice setting. • 5 ps (max) per cell x 16 cell = 80 ps.

  13. Time of flight (2) • Difference of cables = ToF between 5 and 23 cell • Signal is very small (5 mV/div.). • Yellow: E05 (5th cell) • Red: E23 (23th cell) • 100 ps/sample

  14. Optics matching (1) • Found that beam loss in the 4 sector can be reduced with the last 4 quadrupole setting in the injection line (Q15, 16, 17, 18). • Meaning that need better optics matching. • Both Yuri’s empirical setting and Jaroslaw’s calculation with MAD-X reduced beam loss.

  15. Optics matching (2) • Sum signal of the consecutive 7 cells. • With better matching (left) than (right).

  16. Other remarks • “One” of EPICS BPM card seems working now. However, BPM data taking still relies on 7 cables, which gives 7 BPM planes (H or V). • Difficulty to expand momentum range seems mainly due to different (x, x’) from septum. • Overall, however, we understand EMMA much more in details.

  17. Plans • Tomorrow, we start full ring commissioning. • Inject a 18.5 MeV/c equivalent beam. • Optics matching is important than we thought. • However, only YAG at E05 and E23 are available. • ToF measurement with different BPMs. • We may have additional 6 cables (planes) to measure BPM at the same time.

  18. Data • Actual data is stored on http://www.astec.ac.uk/emmafiles/analysis/SortByDate/… • With eLog, you should be able to trace what is going on. http://alice.stfc.ac.uk/elog/alicelog/

More Related