Choose timezone
Your profile timezone:
113th BLM Thresholds WG meeting (Pb ion run)
113th BLM Thresholds WG meeting (Pb ion run)
Participants: Belen, Marta, Sara, Alexandros Manios, Chiara Maccani, George, Andre Donadon, Daniele Mirarchi, Juan Muller, Roderik
Daniele comments the warning in IR5. Already warning in IR8, but it still not nice. Belen comments that we could do the estimate if the beams go head on in IR5 if the losses would be higher. MF to be at quench level would need to be at 0.333. --> Check with Roderik the peak luminosity with head on and see if the MF could be increased. Comment from Arjan quite relaxed on increasing the thresholds.
Retraction of 3sigma is not enough to get rid of the signal (AFP) B6 is the pot having the largest impact on the BLM and on Q8. Would need a much larger retraction than 3 sigma (would kill the physics). We stay with the higher MF.
Sometimes losses not enough to scale BLM thresholds --> Threshold of intensity loss provide. Threshold on BLM signal increase. Check more than one BLM. Include BLM threshold scaling? Same application or something else.
Marta --> Only loss maps in collisions, not including flattop --> will include in future analysis
Is crystal damaged already after one year? Or just different configuration? Do we see differences in the channeling efficiency? To be checked in the linear scans. Should we try in an MD the same configuration as in 2023 and check if it gives the same results?
The crystal should be aligned in all cases... correlation between cleaning getting worse and time when optimization was done? Would need to double check
There are minutes attached to this event.
Show them.