[Dsg-hallb_magnets] [New Logentry] Follow-up Re: Solenoid fast dump at 2416 A

[Brian Eng]

I suspect most of the trips earlier were probably due to LCW issues as well, so I think it's even better looking than that.

The trip on 9/10/18 was due to incorrect QD thresholds rather than noise.

The last "real" noise trip was probably #11 on 12/18/17.

So I think once we figure out what the PV actually means to Hall B we'll have a bit more idea on what to do.

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nick Sandoval" <sandoval at jlab.org>
> To: "Brian Eng" <beng at jlab.org>
> Cc: "dsg-hallb magnets" <dsg-hallb_magnets at jlab.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 1:25:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [Dsg-hallb_magnets] [New Logentry] Follow-up Re: Solenoid fast dump	at 2416 A

> Awesome, Thanks Brian.  After performing the final QD threshold increase on
> Sept10-11 we have not had another noise trip.
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tyler Lemon" <tlemon at jlab.org>
> To: "dsg-hallb magnets" <dsg-hallb_magnets at jlab.org>, "Nicholas Sandoval"
> <sandoval at jlab.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 10:58:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [Dsg-hallb_magnets] [New Logentry] Follow-up Re: Solenoid fast dump
> 	at 2416 A
> 
> Hi Nick,
> 
> Have you gotten a reply from Facilities about what the lcw:92_Flow_Makeup is?
> 
> Best regards,
> Tyler
> 
> 
> 
> From: "Brian Eng" <beng at jlab.org>
> To: "Nick Sandoval" <sandoval at jlab.org>
> Cc: "dsg-hallb magnets" <dsg-hallb_magnets at jlab.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 10:25:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [Dsg-hallb_magnets] [New Logentry] Follow-up Re: Solenoid fast dump
> at 2416 A
> 
> Nick,
> 
> I updated the archive plots I made yesterday to include B_SOL:MPS:Status.BF
> 
> https://userweb.jlab.org/~beng/images/Solenoid%20Fast%20Dumps%20&%20LCW/
> 
> As expected that bit goes high on all the ones that we don't have a known cause
> for, i.e. all the dumps that are only a number in the filename.
> There are a few dumps from full field without that bit but with a well
> understood reason, e.g. 14 & 18.
> 
> 10 is really the only outlier, but since we don't have any FastDAQ data for that
> dump there's not much we can say about it.
>