Boost Analysis Status Matt Weaver MDI Meeting March 31, 2006

Combining  2 y’(z) and dy’/dy(z) Fits angular spread at waists precisely determined asymptotic angular spread (z >>  ) poorly determined z scale factor Together, these fits will determine both HER and LER emittances Assuming equal  *s and waist locations

Monte Carlo Validation 14mm  * 10mm  * 6mm  *  y’ dy’/dy z (cm) mrad-cm mrad ≤ 1 week data 5 fit parameters  Y * y-waist z offset  H  L  2 YY’ detector error Fit  2 is a simple sum of the two  2 s No    y’ dy’/dy} covariance terms included

 * (mm) waist z (mm)  H (nm)  L (nm) generated value Monte Carlo Fit Results combined fit  y’(z) fit only

Run 5 Fit Results  * (mm) waist z (mm)  H (nm)  L (nm) combined fit  y’(z) fit only

waist z (mm) z-centroid (mm) (Relative) waist offset anti-correlates with movement of z-centroid as expected if magnetic waist is static Waist Location

22 22 24 d.o.f. Combined Fit

waist z (mm) z-centroid (mm) (Relative) waist offset anti-correlates with movement of z-centroid as expected if magnetic waist is static Waist Location

waist z (mm) Waist Location (more)  2 YY’ (mrad-cm)  2 YY’ detector error should be constant, except for significant changes to detector (e.g. loss of SVT module) Any variation in the fit may indicate additional waist motion (HER vs LER) Ideally, this parameter will be replaced with a constant  2 YY’ and an additional waist offset.  2 YY’ (mrad-cm) Monte Carlo

 Y (  m) Specific Luminosity  Y derived from combined-fit results shows good anti-correlation with specific luminosity

Luminous  Y (0) (  m) Comparison with Josh  * (mm) Don’t see much correlation. Error bars are complementary in scale. Run 5b may be an interesting comparison

HER Bunch Current (mA) LER Bunch Current (mA) Luminosity Other Machine Conditions

Run 4 Combined Fit Results  * (mm) waist z (mm)  H (nm)  L (nm)

 Y (  m)  Y L (  m) 22 22 24 d.o.f.