1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 <2010> 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 | Index | 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 <2010> 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 |
<== Date ==> | <== Thread ==> |
---|
Subject: | Re: Controls & Physics |
From: | Korhonen Timo <[email protected]> |
To: | Michele Joyce <[email protected]> |
Cc: | "[email protected]" <[email protected]> |
Date: | Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:27:26 +0100 |
Timo,The calculations are put into a layer of EPICS records that uses the hardware layer records as inputs and outputs.
I'm very interested in learning how you do this. Do you have a separate server calculating the optics parameters and sticking them in the EPICS records? Or do you build the calculations into the records of individual devices?
Michele
Korhonen Timo wrote:Steiner, Mathias wrote:My question is this: To what extent are the physics parameters part of the controls? Should there be channels like "Separator:BeamMass," for example?To me and my colleagues (most of them, at least) here this has never even been a question but an obvious thing.
My feeling is that the beam, as it were, should be part of the control system from the beginning, but I don't have much to back this up.
What do you think?
We have (in SLS) all kinds of physics parameters as epics channels (tune, chromacity, etc. for the synchrotron
and, for instance photon energy and polarization for the beamlines.) This brings so many advantages
that I cannot even count...
Of course, you then have to have people in controls that look after and understand these issues. This
in turn makes the communication between different groups much easier. Bob also pointed this out.
So, my 2 cents go for a big yes.
best regards,
Timo