ip crossing angles in pp at 250 gev run11
DESCRIPTION
IP Crossing Angles in PP at 250 GeV Run11. Crossing angles have the potential to reduce the maximum luminosity Error source for luminosity calibration 14 vernier scans in run11 analyzed 8 PHENIX scans 6 STAR scans Compared DX and Q1 BPMs. Data set of interest: all vernier scans of run11. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
IP Crossing Angles in PP at 250 GeV Run11
Crossing angles have the potential to reduce the maximum luminosity
Error source for luminosity calibration 14 vernier scans in run11 analyzed
8 PHENIX scans 6 STAR scans Compared DX and Q1 BPMs
Data set of interest: all vernier scans of run11
8 PHENIX scans
6 STAR scans
Beam sizes between 0.15 and 0.18 mm (from vs)
Effective cross section:
Rmax
depends on crossing angles
Use DX BPMs to calculate crossing angles and Q1 BPMs to check/confirm results.
Orbit thru IP8 (LISA)
IR beam position at PHENIX
Beam position at IR extrapolated from the two sides
Expect all identical (/plane), close to 0
The difference should be 0 (head-on collisions!) regardless of absolute positions
Vertical Q1 results seems to be the “outlier” (with a constant offset of 0.6 mm) => which BPM?
Error +/- 0.2 mm on position (=> 0.025 mrad)
Individual BPMs around PHENIX Even with a crossing
angle DX and Q1 BPMs should line up: Q1-7, DX-7, DX8, Q1-8
They line up in the yellow horizontal plane (minus the 1st 2 stores), still reasonable in blue horizontal
Convincing line-up in yellow vertical plane
Candidate: blue vertical Q1 BPMs (7 o'clock side?)
IR beam position at STAR As before:
Difference between blue and yellow should be 0
Horizontal Dx and Q1 BPMs agree (? : one exception)
Vertical Q1 BPMs have a constant offset of ~1.5 mm
Seems to come from the yellow Q1 BPMs
Use difference b-y as error: +/- 0.1 mm, +/- 1.5 mm seems excessive
?
Individual BPMs around STAR
Horizontal
Vertical
“good”
“bad”
Candidate: yellow vertical 5 o'clock side
Using DX and Q1 BPMs to calculate crossing angles
PHENIX “collision” angle =
blue-yellow crossing angle
Bunch length between 4 ns and 11 ns
Resulting correction: 0.96 to 0.99
Using correction factor:
1/sqrt(1+(sigZ/sigY*phi)^2)
Crossing Angles contd.
STAR Collision
angle = blue – yellow
Bunch length from 4 ns to 10 ns (FWHM)
0.86-0.99 reduction factor !
Old angle scan (#7112)
Angle measurements from DX BPMs
SigY result is within range of beamsizes measured in run5 using vernier scans!
Effect is small because of relatively large beams.
Summary
• Crossing angles have the potential to reduce maximum luminosity (up to 10%). Largest single error for cross section evaluation.
• DX BPMs look 'reasonable' while vertical Q1 BPMs seem to have a problem. (keep in mind though that physical offsets in the DX BPMs are by design the same for blue and yellow! This indicates an offset problem in the Q1 BPMs but a more generic disagreement, level of 100-200 microns, in the DX).
• Effect of crossing angles on lumi varies strongly depending on bunch length and beam size.
• Suggest to do angle scans routinely before fixing the target orbit for collisions at store.
Example of a quick angle scan with 100 GeV pp in run12
Vertical scan caused some background (should not be done automatic!)Horizontal angle found to be ~0.03 mrad from optimum, effect small with run12 beam conditions.
Setting up PHENIX for 0.12 mrad horizontal crossing angles
Crossing angle changes cause beam motion of 34 microns/microrad at the Q3 magnet with this lattice (here 4.5 mm)
Background needs to be controlled while changing the angle
Collimatoradjustments
Can't go in one step, collimators need adjustments at several angles in between (risk of beam abort due to permit and/or detector trips)Stopped at an angle where I could maintain same background conditions for STAR