Difference between revisions of "PITMinutes 04-09-2018"
(→Agenda and Notes) |
(→Agenda and Notes) |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Attendance == | == Attendance == | ||
| − | R. Bachimanchi, K. Baggett, | + | R. Bachimanchi, K. Baggett, M. Drury, A. Freyberger, R. Geng, A. Hutton, G. Krafft, A. Kimber, R. Legg, C. Mounts, R. Nelson, T. Plawski, T. Powers, C. Reece, T. Reilly, R. Rimmer, and A. Solopova. |
== Agenda and Notes == | == Agenda and Notes == | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
1. Operations Status and Summary/Review (Freyberger) | 1. Operations Status and Summary/Review (Freyberger) | ||
| − | + | High average current limits remain. Usually A runs 22.5 muA | |
| − | + | and C runs 50-60 muA. Seems more and more solid that the Hall | |
| − | + | C current limit is 70-75 muA, independent of the Hall A current. | |
| − | + | And the main trips are from beam loss. So focus is shifting | |
| − | + | back to injector. Today, bunch length measurements are being | |
| − | + | made for the different Hall bunches. Recent work points | |
| − | + | to longitudinal phase space tails causing high | |
| − | + | average current trips. Is there a better diagnostic for these? | |
| − | + | Anna will be working on getting a handle on OPS-initiated | |
| + | reductions in the C100 cavity gradients. First try to understand | ||
| + | why people are reducing them and work through mitigations. | ||
| − | + | C75 Review completed. Here is the review report. | |
| − | + | ||
| + | [https://casa.jlab.org/LINACPIT/TN-18-012_Feb_2018_C75_review_report.pdf C75 Review Report] | ||
2. Radiation Reduction with Lead Collars (Legg) | 2. Radiation Reduction with Lead Collars (Legg) | ||
| Line 29: | Line 32: | ||
[https://casa.jlab.org/LINACPIT/Full_Power_Test_Note_98-009.pdf Full Power Test Note] | [https://casa.jlab.org/LINACPIT/Full_Power_Test_Note_98-009.pdf Full Power Test Note] | ||
| − | [https://casa.jlab.org/LINACPIT/More_Optimal_Qext.ppt | + | [https://casa.jlab.org/LINACPIT/More_Optimal_Qext.ppt Additional Information on Optimal Qext] |
4. C100 Refurbishment Planning (Freyberger) | 4. C100 Refurbishment Planning (Freyberger) | ||
Latest revision as of 09:02, 10 April 2018
Attendance
R. Bachimanchi, K. Baggett, M. Drury, A. Freyberger, R. Geng, A. Hutton, G. Krafft, A. Kimber, R. Legg, C. Mounts, R. Nelson, T. Plawski, T. Powers, C. Reece, T. Reilly, R. Rimmer, and A. Solopova.
Agenda and Notes
1. Operations Status and Summary/Review (Freyberger)
High average current limits remain. Usually A runs 22.5 muA and C runs 50-60 muA. Seems more and more solid that the Hall C current limit is 70-75 muA, independent of the Hall A current. And the main trips are from beam loss. So focus is shifting back to injector. Today, bunch length measurements are being made for the different Hall bunches. Recent work points to longitudinal phase space tails causing high average current trips. Is there a better diagnostic for these?
Anna will be working on getting a handle on OPS-initiated reductions in the C100 cavity gradients. First try to understand why people are reducing them and work through mitigations.
C75 Review completed. Here is the review report.
2. Radiation Reduction with Lead Collars (Legg)
3. More on Beam Loading and Q_ext (Krafft)
Additional Information on Optimal Qext
4. C100 Refurbishment Planning (Freyberger)
5. Draft Cryomodule Specification (Benesch)
Jay has written up a set of goals for the cryomodules: Draft Cryomodule Specification
6. Draft Acceptance Criteria (Legg)
Bob shared the LCLS II module acceptance criteria that the LCLS II project is working under. We should perhaps adopt something similar for C75? (Discuss Pros and Cons)
LCLS II Module Acceptance Criteria
Frank and Gigi (mainly) have written up a C75 performance specification document.
JLAB-TN-17-055: Draft C75 Specification Document
Action Items
Leadership of quenches. Offline discussion.
Complete C75 Module Specifications (Marhauser, Benesch, Krafft)
C100 Refurbishment Project for the future?
