1. Addressed questions for LTC
Strategy for operation of the BLM system
Operation with < 4000 channels available?
Mobile BLM?
Tests with beam?

2. Summary of previous discussions
For settings generation, BLM are grouped in families
Via an expert application, a thresholds table is generated by family and stored in ORACLE database (family_info table).
This table and the monitor_info table are used to derived the MASTER table, within the Database (SQL request)
The MASTER tables (one per crate) is protected and set to a so-called ”max safe value” of the different equipment (energy and integration dependant ).
Inside the database, an APLLIED table is derived from the same family_info and monitor_info tables AND multiplying by a factor F, 0<F≤1.
Internal check within ORACLE: APPLIED table ≤ MASTER table
Present implementation, there is one F per family
APPLIED table is sent to front-end and read back for comparing with the one in the database on a regular basis (once/day)

3. Pending questions
Is the granularity of the predefined families fit the operational requirement for changing thresholds?
If not, is there a splitting of the family which fullfill the requirement or do we need one scaling factor per monitor?
Which value for the “max safe value”?:
Proposed value :“Safe beam flag” for cold element?
Damage level x margin for warm element?
With this strategy, MASTER table is below the damage level for cold elements (factor 320 to 1000 between damage level and quench level according to the beam energy, but the same constant is used)
too much conservative?
Do we want to fit better the damage level?

4. remarks/questions
Is the comparison between the APPLIED table loaded in the front-end and the one in the database enough if ORACLE guarantee that an internal check of APLLIED < MASTER is done every time you generate a new APPLIED? OR do we also want an external APLLIED in front-end < MASTER in database?
The maskable/unmaskable status can be defined only at the BLM level, without reconfiguring the BIS?
The masking is done at the CIBU level: you mask all the channels connected at the same time!
Is it acceptable from machine protection point of view?

5. Proposed values for the different tables
Element
Proposed “Max safe level”
Master Table
Applied table
Maskable/ unmaskab le
Number of monitors
MQ, MB
Safe beam flag
Max safe value
Quench level
Maskable
2160
LSS quad
Unmaskable
360
DS quad
480
TCP,TCS%, TDI, TCH, TCLP,TCLI,T CDQ,… ??
Damage level
~330
MQW, MBW 60
MSI, MSD
24+60
MBR%

6. Element
Damage level
Master Table
Applied table
Maskable/ unmaskab le
Number of monitors
MKD, MKB
Safe beam flag
Unmaskable 24
MBX
Quench level 4
TAN,TAS ?
Maskable 8
XRP 9
BCM
BPMSW