Current Events Discussion

The place to discuss the LHC. Commissioning, operation, issues, events ....
User avatar
terryburton
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Current Events Discussion

Post by terryburton » Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:11 am

At the moment the machine operators believe the UFOs to be the result of dislodged dust falling through the beam. They hope that this exists as an artefact of the machine construction rather than a systematic problem and that it will be burned away by continual use so that the number of UFO events decreases with time (relative to beam energy).

josch222
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: Current Events Discussion

Post by josch222 » Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:16 pm

Is it possible that there is still some soot in the beam pipes or magnets, remaining from
the incident at September 19 2008 in Sector 3-4?
AFAIR they replaced a lot of magnets but they repaired and/or cleaned some as well.
As I read about this procedure I wondered how they did this, after all there is the beam shield and I doubt they were able to get behind it. Maybe there is some fluff from the
cleaning rags left :-).
Some days ago they had some losses while moving the roman pots despite they were
far away from the beam. Could this be related to the UFOs? Falling dust due to some
vibration from the roman pots motors?

I already feel sorry about the poor guy who is sent on a 27km walk to knock on all the pipes and magnets to shake the dust down ;-)

User avatar
terryburton
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Current Events Discussion

Post by terryburton » Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:38 pm

The incidence of the UFOs does not appear to be concentrated at the location of the events of September 2008.

Source is three weeks old: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1294051 (at 35 mins)

User avatar
Tau
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: Heemskerk, Netherlands

Re: Current Events Discussion

Post by Tau » Sun Oct 03, 2010 7:10 pm

If you don't want to watch the 40 minute video, you can see just the slides at
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access ... fId=103500
The information about the dust is on slide 20.
- Tau

User avatar
PhilG
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Current Events Discussion

Post by PhilG » Sun Oct 03, 2010 7:56 pm

There was a lot more info about the UFOs on Myers' recent talk http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay ... fId=105780 slides 22-27 but see the video for the full story.

josch222
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: Current Events Discussion

Post by josch222 » Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:05 am

Thanks for the references,
nice to see that someone in the audience at Myers speech had a similar assumption.
Myers explanation sounds very reasonable but I don't understand why they didn't
cleaned the beam shields before they assembled them (or burred them before packing),
it seems to be a known problem in accelerators.

Even the asymmetric shape (slow rise and faster decay) of the losses is explained
if the debris is vaporized by the beam.
But one thing is a bit strange:
If I calculated correctly, a small falling piece needs about 1ms to pass the beam (1mm)
if it had 50mm of free fall. One single bunch needs only 90µs for one revolution.
That is enough time for every piece to get hit if it falls through the beams way.
So why is the rate of this events intensity dependent (and so well correlated)?
I can only think of two options:
1. The area used by the beam increases with intensity (different bunches take
different ways and so a larger horizontal plane is occupied in the pipe and the chance
a falling piece is hit increases)
2. Some electrostatic effect: A piece of dust sits at the upper wall.
When a bunch passes it may be shaken a bit, if there are more bunches passing,
the chances are increasing that it gets shaken loose or picks up charge that will
move it around.

Kasuha
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Current Events Discussion

Post by Kasuha » Mon Oct 04, 2010 7:01 am

josch222 wrote:I don't understand why they didn't
cleaned the beam shields before they assembled them (or burred them before packing),
it seems to be a known problem in accelerators.
They did. It would be much more frequent if they didn't.
josch222 wrote:So why is the rate of this events intensity dependent (and so well correlated)?
At lower intensities the shower generated is less intense as well and does not trigger beam dump. They actually scanned log data from past successful runs and found multiple such events which just weren't strong enough to cause a problem.

josch222
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: Current Events Discussion

Post by josch222 » Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:06 pm

Kasuha wrote: At lower intensities the shower generated is less intense as well and does not trigger beam dump. They actually scanned log data from past successful runs and found multiple such events which just weren't strong enough to cause a problem.
So lets assume that the total rate of beam-dust events is constant,
regardless of intensity. If there is a fixed radiation energy threshold involved the
event rate above this threshold rises with intensity.
That would explain the strong correlation of the 7 events (that triggered a dump)
pretty well.
For the other events given in the "Sub-threshold UFOs" diagram the same applies,
but with a detection threshold given by sensitivity and noise-floor of the BLMs and
shielding effects. If one would add this events the correlation would be weaker.
So if this (somewhat macroscopic) model were right, the correlation would disappear
if one would be able to detect all beam-dust interactions.
But if one looks at the nuclei-level this model is still wrong because more protons around
increase the possibility of interactions with the dust and in the end there will be always a correlation with intensity. Even if the dust-falling-rate would be constant.
Hope I got it right this time :rolleyes:
I wonder if there are some non-linear effects too, depending on what amount
of dust gets evaporated, atomized, ionized or quarkized (? :-) per time.
Or can the cross section be viewed as constant (for a given shape and mass)?

Another question:
I'm not sure because I did not understand what Myers were talking about,
but I believe Myers talked about possibilities to cure the dust-events.
I understand something like "clean it out with high beam intensity" and/or
something about degassing (in the LEP). Did he meant to use the heaters
in the pipes (or screens) to fix any plastic stuff around by melting it?
It is around 00:17:43 at
http://indico.cern.ch/materialDisplay.p ... fId=105780

User avatar
DCWhitworth
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:13 am
Location: Norwich, UK

Re: Current Events Discussion

Post by DCWhitworth » Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:18 pm

200 Bunch fill next up !! More records to fall !
DC

The LHC - One ring to rule them all !

Kasuha
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Current Events Discussion

Post by Kasuha » Mon Oct 04, 2010 5:56 pm

josch222 wrote:I'm not sure because I did not understand what Myers were talking about,
but I believe Myers talked about possibilities to cure the dust-events.
I understand something like "clean it out with high beam intensity" and/or
something about degassing (in the LEP). Did he meant to use the heaters
in the pipes (or screens) to fix any plastic stuff around by melting it?
It is around 00:17:43 at
http://indico.cern.ch/materialDisplay.p ... fId=105780
There's deep vacuum in the pipe, but during construction the pipe is kept under normal atmospheric pressure and during that molecules of atmospheric gas may get deposited within thin layer of the internal pipe surface. When there's vacuum in the pipe, they can escape again and disturb the beam. Degassing means controlled release of these molecules e.g. by heating up the pipe so that as many as possible of them escape during that period instead of during production runs.
They mentioned LHC does not have such problem because its beam is positively charged so I assume these particles have a positive charge too. They are also individual atoms/molecules rather than dust particles.
UFOs are apparently caused by particles which are much bigger.

ferar
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 2:44 am

Re: Current Events Discussion

Post by ferar » Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:25 am

Hi, why is Atlas BGND2 so big (it reads 1454 now) compared to CMS (1.710)? In wich unit is it meassured? And the difference between BGND #1, 2 and 3?
Thanks very much!
Regards;
Fernando

User avatar
jmayes
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:46 pm
Location: USA

Re: Current Events Discussion

Post by jmayes » Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:31 am

The Christmas Tree is getting Brighter!

2e52+13, 150ns_248b_233_16_233_3x8bpi15inj :dance: :clap: :dance: :clap: :yawinkle: :goodman: :D :D :D
Attachments
PanoramixEventDisplay_150ns_248b_186-8-8bpi17inj-2a.jpg
PanoramixEventDisplay_150ns_248b_186-8-8bpi17inj-2a.jpg (32.77 KiB) Viewed 3661 times

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Current Events Discussion

Post by CharmQuark » Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:50 am

Good Job guys :thumbup: :clap: :dance:

Nice pic Jmayes hehehe :whistle:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

User avatar
7holography
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:09 am
Location: courbevoie France

Atlantis Christmas tree needed

Post by 7holography » Fri Oct 08, 2010 6:30 am

Fantastic new bunch train :clap:

but where is the Atlantis live collision display ? :angry-screaming:

Don't stop climbing the barn mountain !!! :happy-sunny:

tomey36
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:39 pm

Re: Current Events Discussion

Post by tomey36 » Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:17 pm

atlas has recorded over 1 trillion collisons! this has to be some kind of milestone, and hopefully enough for some exciting new physics ;)

Post Reply