1. Overview of main results from first HQ02a test For HQ meeting 7/30/13

2. 164 MPa +/- 11 Target: 169 MPa HQ02a cool-down SG data – shell – H. Felice, May 9 meeting https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/WeeklyUpdates/2013/2013-05-09/

3. Avg: -360  (+/- 493) Target: -720  HQ02a cool-down SG data -- coil – H. Felice, May 9 meeting https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/WeeklyUpdates/2013/2013-05-09/

4. Lower ramp rate 4.5 K 1.9 K Ramp rate study Heater study MIITs study 2.1 - 4.5 K 80% of SSL (150 T/m) 92% of SSL 16.2 MIITs HQ02a quench history – G. Chlachidze https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

5.  All ramp rate quenches initiated in the mid-plane blocks of coil #17  No quenches when ramping down from 14605 A at ramp rates of 13-300 A/s HQ02a ramp rate dependence – G. Chlachidze https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

6.  Manual trips without extraction at different currents  Only outer layer heaters protecting the magnet 16.2 MIITs in coil 16 (80 ms dump delay) Tmax = 234-258 K QI limit for HQ02 HQ02a quench integral study – G. Chlachidze https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

7.  10 mΩ dump resistor resulted in 2 MIITs less quench integral HQ02a quench integral study with small dump – G. Chlachidze https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

8. 1: Delay vs. Imag I mag : 5-14.6 kA (30-84% SSL) 4.5, 1.9 K V PH : ~ 250 V (τ: 44-49 ms) Pw0: 52-56 W/cm 2 IL & OL PH 2: Delay vs. PH power I mag = 12 kA (66% SSL) 1.9 K V PH : 200 – 300 V (τ: 45 ms) Pw0: 30 – 70 W/cm 2 OL PH PH delay Time Voltage V PH, Pw0 τ = RC Voltage tap signal I mag constant Fire PH (1 or more strips) PH delay: Time between heater firing and quench initiation HQ02a heater delay study – T. Salmi https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

9. HQ01e, 0.025 mm Kapton HQ02, 0.076 mm Kapton No difference between 1.9 K and 4.5 K Delay ~ 18 ms @ 80% SSL +10 ms + ~20 ms HQ01e: 45 W/cm 2 HQ02: 55 W/cm 2 HQ02a heater delay study – T. Salmi https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

10. Test procedure: 1.Fire all OL PH (Pw0 ~ 55 W/cm 2, τ = 30 ms) 2.Measure time when OL quench (t q,OL ) 3.Measure time when IL quench (t q,OL ) 4.Propagation time = t q,IL -t q,OL Above 70% of SSL, propag. time < 25 ms HQ02a propagation from OL to IL – T. Salmi https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

11. This cycle was preceded by a quench, so harmonics during pre-cycle are different Reproducibility in all harmonics is very good Reproducibility across different accelerato cycles – J. DiMarco https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

12. b3 variation along axis – J. DiMarco https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

13. a3 variation along axis – J. DiMarco https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

14. a4/b4 variation along axis – J. DiMarco https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

15. Central bn vs expectations – X. Wang https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

16. Central an vs expectations – X. Wang https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

17. Warm-cold correlation – J. DiMarco Ref: MT23 presentation/paper

18. Persistent current TF vs models using measured strand magnetization – X. Wang https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

19. Persistent current b6 vs models – X. Wang https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

20. Persistent current decay at injection – J. DiMarco https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

21. Eddy current harmonics as function of ramp rate, HQ02 vs HQ01 – X. Wang https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

22. Spikes in harmonics driven by flux jumps, 4.5 vs 1.9 – J. DiMarco https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/ Much smaller effect at 1.9K, as observed in HQ01

23. HQ01e HQ02 b6 Spikes in harmonics driven by flux jumps, HQ02 vs HQ01 – J. DiMarco https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/ Much smaller effect in HQ02 (compare at 4.5K)