1. PSB MD C. Bracco, G.P. Di Giovanni

2. Outline Aim MD1: – Matching – Trajectories – Transmission MD2 – Matching – Trajectories – Transmission Next steps

3. Aim Verify the impact of a “matched optics” on the trajectory fluctuations Clarify if there is enough flexibility to compensate an optics mismatch with the existing layout

4. PSB MDs November 13 th 2016 Re-matched line assuming initial conditions calculated by M. Bozzolan: Quadrupoles at end of the LTB and BI line (no QN30 and QN40!) LTB.QDW60 = 11.73 A  9.30 A BI.QNO10 = 16.50 A  16.41 A BI.QNO20 = 19.00 A  19.51 A BI.QNO50 = 47.25 A  48.47 A BI.QNO60 = 54.00 A  54.02 A LTB.QDW60 = 11.73 A  9.30 A BI.QNO10 = 16.50 A  16.41 A BI.QNO20 = 19.00 A  19.51 A BI.QNO50 = 47.25 A  48.47 A BI.QNO60 = 54.00 A  54.02 A

5. Trajectories BPM30 BPM40 BPM50 Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 An improvement in the vertical oscillations after matching to new initial conditions (±2.5 mm  ±0.25 mm) Optics change

6. Transmission Before matching After matching LT-LTB

7. Transmission Before matching After matching

8. Layout

9. PSB MDs November 19 th 2016 Re-matched line assuming initial conditions: Quadrupoles at the beginning of the LT line  c ’ = 1 LT.QFN10 = 293.00 A  291.37 A LT.QDN12= -225.00 A  -230.98 A LT.QFN20 = 125.00 A  108.47 A LT.QDN22 = -85.00 A  -70.18 A LT.QFN30 = 43.20 A  51.68 A LT.QDN32 = -59.00 A  -52.90 A LT.QFN40 = 114.50 A  111.56 A LT.QDN42 = -97.10 A  -109.82 A LT.QFN10 = 293.00 A  291.37 A LT.QDN12= -225.00 A  -230.98 A LT.QFN20 = 125.00 A  108.47 A LT.QDN22 = -85.00 A  -70.18 A LT.QFN30 = 43.20 A  51.68 A LT.QDN32 = -59.00 A  -52.90 A LT.QFN40 = 114.50 A  111.56 A LT.QDN42 = -97.10 A  -109.82 A

10. Trajectories BPM30 BPM40 BPM50 An improvement in the vertical oscillations after matching to new initial conditions (±2.5 mm  ±0.25 mm) Optics change Ring3 Ring2 Ring1

11. Transmission Before matching After matching LT-LTB

12. Next Steps Initial conditions? – MADX calculations (measured trajectories + quadrupole misalignment  match using  0 and  0 as variables) – Measurements? Non calibrated kicker (fixed slit) Quadrupoles: unipolar PC, unknown optics Not possible to perform reliable measurements in LTE! Possible using SEM grids in LTB line? Additional BLMs to discard appearance of hot spots?

13. Linac 4 BCT + BLM BCT Profile MonitorsStripping Foil Test Stand Location SourceDTLCCDTLPIMS Dump 3 MeV 50 MeV 100 MeV 160 MeV Linac4 Layout Transfer Line to PSB Transfer Line to PSB QFQD Enough diagnostics?

14. Conclusions There evidences of an optics mismatch between Linac 2 and the TL Re-matching the optics allowed to reduce the trajectory oscillations but transmission got worse Not possible to measure reliably the optics with LTE line Next steps: calculate initial conditions  rematch optics  steering to optimise transmission (MD) Possibly adding BLMs along the line (large beta) Calculations with SC