Choose timezone
Your profile timezone:
Energy error
→
Europe/Zurich
Failure cases and risks
- Small energy error can lead to trajectory errors. These will be analysed by Alex' study
- Large energy error can lead to a trajectory error and can trigger a fast extraction (~10ms) to the North Area
Current situation
There is currently no BETS check on SFTPRO cycles.
The energy increases during the spill. At the beginning it is 400 GeV, then it gradually increases to ~400.7 GeV for slow extraction.
Operators can trim the field and momentum scaling propagates to the transfer line elements. Trimming is used a lot by operators.
AWAKE operates at the same energy as the NA (400GeV)
Post LS3
Impossible to differentiate SFTPRO/SFTSHIP cycles based on energy. Both have to use the same energy because of the wobbling magnets that operate in DC and their configuration must provide the same trajectories on SFTPRO/SFTSHIP.
AWAKE/NA mistakes:
- Sending SFTPRO beam to AWAKE is seen as very unlikely
- Sending AWAKE beam to the NA is protected because of the Imin check on the MSE (MSE would pulse which would interlock for a non-FTARGET destination)
Considered hardware interlocks are:
- BLMs
- DI/DT (though not very operational at the moment, interlock is masked)
Maybe software interlocks on settings could be implemented. To be followed up.
Actions:
Francesco: Share the data on energy jitter in the SPS
Alex: Study the effect of small energy errors on the beam trajectory
Antoine: Organise follow-up when Francesco and Kevin are available to discuss how settings could be protected for steering, tune correction and autospill.
There are minutes attached to this event.
Show them.
