Minutes/Action items of "Instrumentation-Systems-SDA" monthly meeting April 1, 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- J. Annala, D. Capista, M. Convery,C. Gattuso, A. Jansson, I. Kourbanis, V. Lebedev, C. McClure, T. Meyer,D. Morris, V. Papadimitriou, L. Prost, K. Seiya, D. Slimmer,M. Wendt, M.J.Yang We discussed the following: -------------------------- 1) Tevatron IPM status - Andreas Jansson 2) Main Injector IPM data - Denton Morris 3) Proton Emittances/MI8 line and Main Injector - Ming-Jen Yan, Kiyomi Seiya, Vaia Papadimitriou ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Conclusions-Action Items: 1) The IPM DAQ system is now working properly and reporting to ACNET after some problems were experienced following the power outage of February 11. Signals are smaller now though than they used to be, fluctuating a lot and occasionally disappearing altogether. The investigations so far have shown that this is not due to the stochastics of gas interaction. It is not clear yet if this has to do with the gas pressure fluctuating, but the HV has likely (but not completely) been completely ruled out as a culprit. There was a suggestion to check the timing (clock) signals to integrator with respect to a fast BPM signal at E0 and Andreas plans to do this. 2) The study of the H2 IPM ACNET data, focusing on the fractional tune (device I:H2PMFP[3]) for which we have independent measurements via BPM turn by turn, continues. The study is taking place for both $2A events in Pbar transfers and in $23 events for NUMI and stacking. We still have missing data and some of the available IMP data do not seem reasonable. A better data organization is being developed to support multiple machine states and the ability to directly correlate IPM data with other instrumentation. One of the things that will speed up debugging is to have a time stamp provided for the IPM signal. A smaller team of IPM experts from Instrumentation and Main Injector people plans to meet very soon and discuss the details of the debugging plan. For the proton cycles a correct specification needs to be developed. A tunnel access will be needed as well to address noise issues (It happened on April 6th). 3) a) The emittance monitor of the MI8 line is functional for the past couple of years. Ming-Jen showed some data profiles from the multiwire scanner in the MI8 line for November 19, 2008 and for March 29, 2009. The I:8GH(v)E15 device (Tevatron Injections) was not datalogged till late March, and after it became datalogged it exhibited 0 values for the sigma of the fitted wire profile. The 0's were apparently related to big offsets for a few of the wires that had not been ignored during the fitting procedure. The $15 cycle will require more work from Instrumentation experts and subsequent validation. Ming-Jen will also consult with Booster colleagues about these wire profile distributions, since it seems that some of the tails of the distributions could be reduced if the kicking from the Booster is adjusted appropriately. More wires need to be added to calculate the beta functions in an automatic way in order to make the MI8 line emittance measurements insensitive to lattice changes. b) We are in the process of trying to understand the recent increase of MI 8 GeV horizontal emittances and then its decrease after the Booster RF 3 station was turned off on March 30th. We will try to evaluate what additional Booster instrumentation could be helpful in the long run to help troubleshoot similar situations. We have two devices datalogged now that can help study 8 GeV horizontal emittances on $2B: I:WHEP02[144/145] and I:8GHE15. There is a study in progress to evaluate the effect of the Booster fuzzer on the Main Injector coalescing efficiency. Kiyomi reported that the Booster fuzzer that increases the longitudinal emittance at injection is ON again since store 6944. c) Vaia reported on a study of horizontal MI 8 and 150 GeV proton emittances during proton multibatch operation. She compared emittances, sigmas, centroids, amplitudes and chisquares before and after Jim Zagel reduced the FW integrator hold time on March 3rd from 200 ns to 100 ns (as well as some additional adjustments he implemented on March 20th). The fit amplitudes which were significantly different between the 1st and 2nd proton batch before the Integrator fit are much closer now, but they are much smaller than they used to be. We have to evaluate if this compromises in any way the measurement. The sigmas, emittances and centroids have been exhibiting similar differences between the 1st and 2nd batch in the February and March comparisons. The chisquare differences at 8 Gev for the fits of the 1st and 2nd batch have been now improved but we have to look more closely at the wire profiles themselves. Our next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 6, 2009, at 2:00 pm.