1. Non-user time 2/7 of total
Background
The FEL Performance Program started in the January 2014
Goal: “Make the best use of non-user time to improve the performance and capability of the machine.”
. . . User Beams
Maintenance
PAMM, urgent problems, BBA
~25%
Development
e-,
x-ray,
~50%
Setup
prepare configs
instrument checkout
~25%
User Beams. .
Non-user time 2/7 of total

2. Functional Organization
Performance Program Management
J. Welch, W. White
Scheduling and Coordination
J. Turner
Quality
J. Welch
5 Program functions are chosen to cover all aspects of the beam the users receive
Scheduling deals with the real-world complications
Management keeps system going and helps provide transparency
Good cross-over between photon and electron work.
Capability
Z. Huang
Stability
T. Maxwell/F.J Decker
Reproducibility
R. Iverson/W. Colocho
Photon
M. Minitti

3. How it works
Each Program has a clear Objective and Scope defined in a synopsis.
User Run Schedule is made by LCLS and sets the user and non-user time.
Overall % allocation of development time for each program is assigned by Performance Program Managers at beginning of user run.
Program Leads decide priorities within their program, plan and organize studies, and make sure analysis is done and reported.
Individual studies are scheduled each week using the % allocations.

5. Actual allocation
Overall
since 11/12/13
Run 12
as of 1/5/16

6. OLD issues Maintenance time is too large
Need feedback on program balance.
Rebalance from 40% Capability, 20% Quality, 10% Reproducibility, 10% Stability, 20% Photon?
Program goals need updating for next run

7. New issues Efficiency improvement needed
Management and priority decisions are needed for
Transfer to operations of new capabilities
Special setups
LCLS-II studies.

8. Capability Goals Run 11 and 12 Capability
Finish dechirper commissioning
Use dechirper for FEL operation (is this TTO?)
Use dechirper for FEL manipulations (fresh bunch, seeding, 2-color)
Develop ns-separation two bunches with same/different energy separation, time scan capabilities
Develop two bunches with up to 1 us separation
Study BC configurations to reduce microbunching and SXRSS pedestals
Test cathode laser transverse shaping project
Test heater laser transverse shaping project
Capability

9. Stability Goals Run 11 and 12 Stability
Consistency: Meet or exceed energy stability goal (< SASE BW / 2) for > 75% of routine operation
Projects:
Deuterium thyratrons installed to stations 20-6 through 21-2
Installation and demonstration of 2 new high power RF loads
TTO of thyratron remote ranging
New initiative: Investigate means to reduce frequency of interruptive RF station trips
Stability

10. Quality Goals Run 11 and 12 Quality
Finish at least 12 of the 32 “in progress” studies.
Generate at least 12 “proposals”
Start at least 6 new studies
Get peak mJ that is no lower than for Run 10
Get peak power that is no lower than for Run 10
Quality

11. Performance Program (organized MD effort)
~3-5 year future
2016 5
2021 10
2026 15
2031 20
2036
LCLS1
LCLS2
new beam lines
Mystery Future
Solve dark energy/matter
Solve world energy needs
Artificial intelligence
Lots of random stuff
Performance Program (organized MD effort)
Formalized TTO effort

12. 3-5 year improvements
Studies for higher brightness and more photons per pulse, better pulse stability, reduced tune-up time
Studies and training involve Ops for better flexibility and efficiency to easily deliver
pump-probe configurations
polarization
seeded beams
very short bunches
???
We need to Consolidate and Push - this is the chance. In we will be learning how to deliver SC beams.

13. Run 11 expectations energy range 280 -11200 eV 1-3 mJ/pulse
up to 25 keV at 1% pulse energy
variable pulse length 40 to 300 fs
pulse length <10 fs, and ~500 fs for soft x-rays, available
seeded pulse energy keV, and “typical” seeded parameters include 5.4?? to 9.5 keV; available from SASE in less than 30 minutes
two color, soft and hard, uncertain parameters

14. Transition to operations

15. Discussion
New capabilities are proven within the Capabilities program, but commissioning them and making them routinely available for users has become an increasingly large fraction of the non-user time.
Process and responsibilities are not well defined.
How do we decide how much time to give TTOs?

16. Examples HXRSS - took ~50 shifts of MD time, about two years
XTCAV - commissioning started end of and went on for ?
SXRSS - commissioning started early and continues today

17. TTO Projects
SXRSS
DELTA
laser timing for LCLS-I Ops
MBNCH
Dechirper

18. TTO Process Synopsis Approval TTO Execution Formal Handoff
States lead, TTO project name, goal, scope of work, estimated time and other resources. Template at Approvers should work with Lead to write synopsis
Approval
Approvers include responsible OPs and L&FEL personnel. Also need to include whoever is funding the work.
TTO Execution
TTO Process
OPs and L&FEL provide resources, timely reviews, etc. Lead executes
Formal Handoff
All approvers meet and agree it is ready to hand off to Ops for regular delivery to users. When is the capability announced to users?
Available for users
Ops to maintain capability, requesting help from L&FEL as needed.

19. TTO website
Home.aspx
Contains synopses of projects