Difference between revisions of "PITMinutes 04-09-2018"

From CASA Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Agenda and Notes)
(Agenda and Notes)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Attendance ==
 
== Attendance ==
  
R. Bachimanchi, K. Baggett, J. Benesch, R. Geng, C. Hovater, G. Krafft, A. Kimber, R. Legg, F. Marhauser, C. Mounts, R. Nelson, T. Plawski, T. Powers, C. Reece, R. Rimmer, and A. Solopova.
+
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 8: Line 8:
  
 
High average current limits remain. Usually A runs 22.5 muA
 
High average current limits remain. Usually A runs 22.5 muA
and C runs 50-60 muA. Seems more an more solid that the Hall
+
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.
 
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
 
And the main trips are from beam loss. So focus is shifting
 
back to injector. Today, bunch length measurements are being
 
back to injector. Today, bunch length measurements are being
made for the different Hall bunches.
+
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
 
Anna will be working on getting a handle on OPS-initiated
reductions in the cavity gradients. First try to understand
+
reductions in the C100 cavity gradients. First try to understand
 
why people are reducing them and work through mitigations.
 
why people are reducing them and work through mitigations.
  
 
C75 Review completed. Here is the review report.
 
C75 Review completed. Here is the review report.
  
[https://casa.jlab.org/LINACPIT/Lead_Collars_For_C100s_03212018.pdf C75 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 30: 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 Presentation on Optimal Qext]
+
[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.

C75 Review Report

2. Radiation Reduction with Lead Collars (Legg)

C100 Lead Collar Update

3. More on Beam Loading and Q_ext (Krafft)

Full Power Test Note

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?