<div>Participants : D. Calzolari, C. Carli, Y. Dutheil. M.A. Jebramcik, A. Lechner, G. Nigrelli, A. Potet, K. Skoufaris, S. Yue</div>
<div>      </div>
<div>      </div>
<div>      • Differences between LCC106.1 and 106.2</div>
<div>            ○ Optimisation was done without beam-beam and positive offset</div>
<div>            ○ Now done with beam-beam and negative energy offset for</div>
<div>      • MIK status and plans (S. Yue)</div>
<div>            ○ Important to determine the beam stay-clear definition in PB for MIK concept design</div>
<div>            ○ With zero phase advance the phase space is still deformed .</div>
<div>                  § Need input from ABP for criteria of significance for the deformation</div>
<div>                  § Ultimately could be tested in tracking ?</div>
<div>                  § If Sen could provide a python script to include those elements, but presently use custom element not yet merged in xtrack</div>
<div>                  § Or if Sen could provide a full deformed beam distribution</div>
<div>            ○ Why is the vertical phase space not seem to be conserved for the large ellipse</div>
<div>            ○ Also a concern for the beam halo</div>
<div>                  § For now COLL takes an arbitrary number of 1% from 3 sigma up and considers various distributions</div>
<div>                  § COLL still plans to generate realistic halo but present best model only considers quantum lifetime</div>
<div>            ○ Matching of the injected beam may require non-linear matching in the transfer line</div>
<div>      • Mirrored custom optics to investigate the pi-phase advance concept</div>
<div>            ○ Present model is increasing the</div>
<div>            ○ Is it something the optics team has some interest and possibility to work on ?</div>
<div>            ○ In a real design the dispersion would certainly be smaller than 1.4m if the pi-optics is squeezed in the straight section</div>
<div>                  § Lower dispersion should be OK with the MIK since we don't need large beam size</div>
<div>                  § We should adapt the hacked version to make it work and compare with the zero-phase advance</div>
<div>      • Polarised bunches</div>
<div>            ○ We need to first understand what happens</div>
<div>      • Top-up injection results w/ LCC106.2.1 (M.A. Jebramcik)</div>
<div>            ○ Now includes markers in PB, can ask for changes</div>
<div>            ○ Now MA extended in the negative direction, where the beam is injected</div>
<div>                  § This tracking uses 1.02%, while on-axis is 1.06% -&gt; idea would be to keep the hybrid scheme</div>
<div>            ○ Injection conducted with beam-beam, quantum, BS, coupling and bumpers</div>
<div>            ○ With 150 MV it reaches higher performance, at 90MV it is really on the edge</div>
<div>            ○ Presently without errors, so more comfortable margin at 150MV</div>
<div>            ○ Giulia</div>
<div>                  § confirms those preliminary results and the critical injection points</div>
<div>                  § Will conduct those tracking with collimation soon</div>
<div>            ○ If Sen rematches the injection strength and identifies the injection point, and the delta</div>
<div>      • Giulia will prepare one slide about the top-up injection status for Frank</div>