SPS results with ions 2011 runs

1. SPS results with ions2011 runs ValentinaPrevitali, Roberto Salemme, BranislavRistic Daniele Mirarchi CERN, Imperial College London UA9 Collaboration meeting 18th April 2012

2. Overview Only one run, done the 22nd November. • Given here an introduction of the main results obtained with the angular scans for: • reduction of inelastic interaction rate at the crystal location • reduction of the losses at the TAL2 location • complete Loss-Map of the SPS using the SPS-BLMs • Main analysis steps: • Checked the coherency of all the detectors in every location, for every measurement • Taken the best detector for the particular beam condition (i.e. high/low flux) • Every detector background subtracted • Normalization w.r.t. to the intensity or the flux depending from the beam condition, and choose the one that “normalize better” (i.e. in the angular scans the one that makes the same level of normalized losses in AM orientation) Daniele Mirarchi

3. Angular Scans • Example of coherency check: • all the detectors at crystal superimposed • Example of data quality: • normalized losses as function of the crystal angle at the crystal and at the TAL2, for the same scan

4. Angular Scans Summary table of the scans: Daniele Mirarchi

5. Angular Scans Summary table of the scans: Daniele Mirarchi

6. Angular Scans Interesting behavior of the reduction factor at Crystal in function of the gap between Cr & TAL: • Reduction factor with almost the same behavior than with the protons! • Reduction factor coherent with what found in the past where was used a gap of ~1-2σ! Daniele Mirarchi

7. Angular Scans Reduction at TAL2 location strongly dependent from the gap between Cr & TAL: • As at the crystal location increase of the reduction factor at ~4σ, but here much more evident! • Completely different from the protons run in which non dependence has been found! Daniele Mirarchi

8. SPS Loss-Map • Overview: • Level of losses starts to be seen, but still needed better detectors settings (only 7 BLMs good) • Background estimation done BLM by BLM during a specific period at the beginning of the run • Loss Map calculated during the angular scans • For every BLM: • amorphous value given by the average of the losses on definedangularrange • channelingvaluegiven by the losses in the channelingdip Scan 20:04 - 20:10 Scan 20:15 - 20:19 Daniele Mirarchi

9. SPS Loss-Map scan 22:37 - 22:46 scan 22:28 - 22:34 scan 22:59 - 23:04 scan 23:07 - 23:11 Daniele Mirarchi

10. SPS Loss-Map scan 00:35 - 00:48 scan 00:57 - 01:05 scan 01:08 - 01:16 Daniele Mirarchi

11. Conclusions Main results achieved: • Angular scans: • Regarding the reduction of inelastic interaction at the crystal location: • reproduced the factor ~3-4 with a gap ~1-3σ used in the past two years! • as in the protons case found an increase of the factor up to ~8 with a gap in the range ~4-5σ! • no correlation found with the position of the crystal w.r.t. the beam center • Regarding the losses reduction in the dispersive area: • strongly dependent from the TAL2 position • reproduced a factor ~2 found in the past year with a gap in the range ~1-3σ • found a factor ~10 with a gap in the range ~4-5σ Daniele Mirarchi

12. Conclusions Main results achieved: • SPS Loss-Map: • SPS-BLMs starts to see something, but still needed better detectors settings • losses reduction seen in each SPS-BLM that works well • level of the losses in channeling orientation usually less than the background level • Main problems during the runs: • Errors in the procedure (i.e. no presence of good linear scans in dispersive area in amorphous and channeling orientation respectively) • Detectors settings (mainly SPS-BLM) Daniele Mirarchi

13. Conclusions About the future: • Take care of the procedure!!! • Take care that all the loggings are working well, and with the right parameters! • Regarding angular scans for the losses reduction measurement at the crystal and TAL2: • needed extensive study of the reduction as function of the gap: from gap ~1σ to ~8σ with steps of ~0.5σ • Regarding the linear scans in the dispersive area: • strongly needed a good actuation of the procedure • needed a good set of scans with both sides of the Mini-RP to study the off-momentum production in amorphous and channeling orientation • Regarding the LHC-Collimator scans: • do some scans to check the results obtained in the past years • Still needed more data analysis Daniele Mirarchi

14. BACKUP Daniele Mirarchi

15. MD 22th November 2011 • Measurements done and analyzed: • Angular scans • Main problems: • Errors in the procedure execution (alignment with LHC-Coll open, more object aligned at the same time…) • About Loss-Map: Checked SPS-BLM by SPS-BLM  only 7 found sensible, over 216 • BLM2 (@ crystal) non coherent with the other detectors • Main analysis steps: • Checked the coherency of all the detectors in every location, for every measurement • Taken the best detector for the particular beam condition (i.e. high/low flux) • Every detector background subtracted • Normalization w.r.t. to the intensity or the flux depending from the beam condition, and choose the one that “normalize better” (i.e. in the angular scans the one that makes the same level of normalized losses in AM orientation) Daniele Mirarchi