Participants: D.Wollman, B.Salvachua, A.Lechner, C.Hernalsteens, C.E.Montanari, P.Hermes, N.Triantafyllou, F.Carra, S.Redaelli, R.Bruce

Belen first presentation:

Two corrections: luminosity in colliding IRs and IR7 from collimation

pp reference run needs correction in thresholds for different energy and luminosity
- To avoid 30% warning level in collisions
- Anton compares that the higher factor needed in LHCb is because there is no TAS
- Comments that ATLAS might have a higher luminosity in the end, maybe have as target luminosity 3e33
  - Belen will check with Reyes
  - Maybe give some margin also to IR8 in case of noise
- Energy level 11
  - Check also energy level 10
Triplets IR8
- Implement only in the energy level in the master thresholds the correction to RS08
  - More simple corrections to have safer changes
IP8 TCTs
- Same approach, but fixing to RS10
IP1 and IP5
- Possibility also of doing by MF, but preferred to do change in master threshold to keep it homogeneous
For scaling in IP7:
- Allowing 300kW with MF=0.6
- Scaling from second set of loss maps
- Proposal -> changing only monitors that require a factor higher than 1.3 -> limiting at 250kW instead of 300kW
- Check the TCT that seems to be limiting from collimation losses after applying collision debris correction

As this is done on only one energy level, it would affect only a small part in the ramp

Implement changes during the technical stop

C.E.Montanari presentation:

Loss maps 8.5 sigmas in secondaries (relaxed settings)

In B1H strong losses in IR6 too (will we quench first in IR6?)

In B1V comparable cleaning and inefficiency in the DS of IR7, but lower losses in IR6

Still considering nominal settings for the quench test...

Rescaling to 1.2MW to have margin

In terms of BLM signals in does not change a lot if B1H or B1V

F.Carra presentation:

Considerations taken into account for the 2013 quench test

Maybe expect to reach 50C during the 2024 quench test...

Do not advise to increase temperature thresholds

Second presentation Belen:

Allow 1200kW for bLMs with high response
Allow 3600kw for BLMs with low response
MF unchanged
Proposal to mask two BLMs that are monitoring losses for the other beam
- In the database
Create dedicated families, and move BLMs to them
In the DS, signals very low, some of them increased anyway

B1V selected!!!