Siwon Jang Hoyeong Jeong Glenn Christian Talitha Bromwich Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting IPBPM filter tests Siwon Jang Hoyeong Jeong Glenn Christian Talitha Bromwich

Calibration and position calculations Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Calibration and position calculations Calibration – update on last meeting Now removing SIS pedestal by subtracting mean of first 40 samples. Added a 3-sigma cut on the reference and ICT. Position calculation - using resolution data set, with θIQ and k from calibration Remove pedestal and select sample number (or range of of interest). Perform 3 sigma cut on the reference cavity and the ICT. Calculate position using I and Q signals, charge q from the reference and θIQ and k from the calibration run.

Jitter and 2-on-1 resolution calculations Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Jitter and 2-on-1 resolution calculations Jitter (using position calculations across all triggers): 2-on-1 resolution (using positions from two different sets of electronics): Accounting for additional attenuation due to 2-on-1 splitter: Makes the result equivalent to the result if there was no splitter. because

Test of calibration / position / jitter / 2-on-1 Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Test of calibration / position / jitter / 2-on-1 Use one example data set from BPF 2-on-1 resolution tests Compare calibration results of ATF online system with calibrations performed on raw data using an integration of the pulse across the same set range. Electronics A Electronics B Res limit (μm) Res limit (μm) accounting for attenuation Calibration θIQ k Jitter (μm) ATF (48 to 80) -1.1225 0.121094 0.123 ± 0.009 1.4854 0.118654 0.125 ± 0.009 0.038 ± 0.003 0.025 ± 0.002 Integration (49 to 81) 0.12297 0.120 ± 0.008 1.4843 0.12089 0.037 ± 0.003 Seems to show good agreement. Differences may be due to different cuts (?)

Comparing calibration methods Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Comparing calibration methods Single sample: Pick one sample number in the pulse to calibrate and find position. Integration: Integrate the pulse between a range of sample numbers, defining a single set of θIQ and k and finding one position. Multi-sample averaging: Calibrate and work out position for each sample individually (as in single sample), then average the position in each pulse from multiple sample numbers. * Weighted multi-sample averaging: Calibrate and work out position for each sample individually, then average and weight positions from multiple sample numbers using the effective power of the pulse at that sample number: √(I2+Q2). * Currently performing 3-sigma cut on ICT and Ref before calculating positions. These cuts are calculated based on each single sample number data set, but applied on ALL data to ensure the same pulses are rejected across all sample numbers. Positions are then calculated using individual calibrations for each sample. Alternative: do not cut on ICT and reference, but perform 3-sigma position cut after positions have been calculated for each sample number.

Splitter on first stage Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Splitter on first stage Nominal optics, waist (minimum y jitter of 141 nm) centered on IPB. 6 dB (7.1 dB at the working frequency) power splitter on IPBY leading to electronics A and B on first stage. Charge ~ 0.4 x 1010 Data Set 1: 6.41 GHz BPF before splitter, so on both sets of electronics. Data Set 2: 6.41 GHz BPF after splitter, on A electronics only. Data Set 3: Splitter, no BPF. Analysis Single point calibration across range of sample numbers – plot and find minimum resolution limit and minimum jitter on A and B. Integration calibration – find min res limit and jitter Multi-sample averaging – find min res limit and jitter Weighted multi-sample averaging – find min res limit and jitter

Data set 1 – shared BPF Peak √(I2+Q2) at 58 for A and B Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Data set 1 – shared BPF Peak √(I2+Q2) at 58 for A and B Peak of k at 56, for A and B Waveform starts at sample 55.

Single point calibration: Data set 1: shared BPF Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Single point calibration: Data set 1: shared BPF Peak √(I2+Q2) at 58 for A and B Peak of k at 56, for A and B Waveform starts at sample 55. Jitter A min: 0.284 μm at 57 Jitter B min: 0.228 μm at 56 Res lim min: 0.071 μm at 56

Data set 2 – BPF on A Peak √(I2+Q2) at 56 for A and 58 for B Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Data set 2 – BPF on A Peak √(I2+Q2) at 56 for A and 58 for B Peak of k at 56, for A and B Waveform starts at sample 55

Single point calibration: Data set 2: BPF on A Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Single point calibration: Data set 2: BPF on A Peak √(I2+Q2) at 56 for A and 58 for B Peak of k at 56, for A and B Waveform starts at sample 55 Jitter A min: 0.234 μm at 57 Jitter B min: 0.236 μm at 56 Res lim min: 0.158 μm at 56

Data set 3 – no BPF Peak √(I2+Q2) at 58 for A and 57 B Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Data set 3 – no BPF Peak √(I2+Q2) at 58 for A and 57 B Peak of k at 56, for A and B Waveform starts at sample 55

Single point calibration: Data set 3: no BPF Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Single point calibration: Data set 3: no BPF Peak √(I2+Q2) at 58 for A and 57 B Peak of k at 56, for A and B Waveform starts at sample 55 Jitter A min: 0.264 μm at 56 Jitter B min: 0.253 μm at 56 Res lim min: 0.082 μm at 56

First stage split: comparison of 3 data sets Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting First stage split: comparison of 3 data sets BPF on both BPF on A No BPF Jitter A min 0.284 ± 0.006 (57) 0.234 ± 0.005 (57) 0.264 ± 0.006 (56) Jitter B min 0.228 ± 0.005 (56) 0.236 ± 0.005 (56) 0.253 ± 0.006 (56) Resolution limit min 0.071 ± 0.002 (56) 0.158 ± 0.004 (56) 0.082 ± 0.002 (56) Resolution limit min accounting for attenuation 0.031 ± 0.001 (56) 0.070 ± 0.002(56) 0.036 ± 0.001 (56) Sample number in brackets Neven’s result from October 2014 with splitter on first stage, no BPF: resolution limit 0.036 μm using single sample, 7.1dB splitter, no BPF, 0.8 x 1010 charge. Accounting for attenuation and at a charge of 0.4 x 1010 0.032 μm.

Integration calibration: first stage split Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Integration calibration: first stage split Integration method over range 49 to 81 (as performed at ATF in April), compared to the optimum window for minimum resolution limit on electronics. Data Calibration Jitter A (μm) Jitter B (μm) Res limit (μm) Res limit (μm) accounting for attenuation BPF on both Integration (49 to 81) 0.156 ± 0.004 0.148 ± 0.003 0.045 ± 0.001 0.0201 ± 0.0004 Integration (55 to 60) 0.189 ± 0.004 0.177 ± 0.004 0.030 ± 0.001 0.0133 ± 0.0003 BPF on A 0.194 ± 0.004 0.178 ± 0.004 0.035 ± 0.001 0.0157 ± 0.0004 Integration (56 to 63) 0.205 ± 0.005 0.195 ± 0.004 0.026 ± 0.001 0.0113 ± 0.0003 No BPF 0.162 ± 0.004 0.060 ± 0.001 0.0267 ± 0.0006 Integration (55 to 58) 0.219 ± 0.005 0.213 ± 0.005 0.029 ± 0.001 0.0129 ± 0.0003

Multi-sample averaging Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Multi-sample averaging BPF on both BPF on A No BPF Single Sample Resolution Limit Min 0.031 ± 0.001 (56) 0.070 ± 0.002 (56) 0.036 ± 0.001 (56) Multi Sample Averaging Resolution Limit Min 0.0178 ± 0.0004 (55 to 56) 0.0223 ± 0.0005 (55 to 57) 0.031 ± 0.001 (56 to 57) Weighted Multi-Sample Averaging Resolution Limit Min 0.0175 ± 0.0004 (55 to 56) 0.0369 ± 0.001 (55 to 57) Sample numbers in brackets. All values accounting for attenuation in splitter.

Multi-sample averaging Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Multi-sample averaging

Splitter on second stage Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Splitter on second stage Nominal optics, waist (minimum y jitter of 141 nm) centered on IPB. 3.5 dB power splitter on IPBY to electronics A and B on second stage. Charge ~ 0.4 x 1010 Data Set 1: 714 ±10 MHz BPF before splitter, so on both sets of electronics. Data Set 2: 714 ±10 MHz BPF after splitter, on A electronics only. Data Set 3: Splitter, no BPF. Analysis Single point calibration across range of sample numbers – plot and find minimum resolution limit and minimum jitter on A and B. Integration calibration – find min res limit and jitter Multi-sample averaging – find min res limit and jitter Weighted multi-sample averaging – find min res limit and jitter

Data set 1 – shared BPF Peak √(I2+Q2) at 62 for A and 63 for B Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Data set 1 – shared BPF Peak √(I2+Q2) at 62 for A and 63 for B Peak of k at 62, for A and B Waveform starts at 56

Single point calibration: Data set 1: shared BPF Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Single point calibration: Data set 1: shared BPF Peak √(I2+Q2) at 62 for A and 63 for B Peak of k at 62, for A and B Waveform starts at 56 Jitter A min: 0.196 μm at 58 Jitter B min: 0.216 μm at 58 Res lim min: 0.071 μm at 60

Data set 2 – BPF on A Peak of √(I2+Q2) at 62 for A, 58 for B Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Data set 2 – BPF on A Peak of √(I2+Q2) at 62 for A, 58 for B Peak of k at 62 for A, 56 for B Waveform A starts at 56, B at 55

Single point calibration: Data set 2: BPF on A Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Single point calibration: Data set 2: BPF on A Peak of √(I2+Q2) at 62 for A, 58 for B Peak of k at 62 for A, 56 for B Waveform A starts at 56, B at 55 Jitter A min: 0.258 μm at 58 Jitter B min: 0.260 μm at 56 Res lim min: 0.332 μm at 59

Data set 3 – no BPF Peak √(I2+Q2) at 58 for A and B Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Data set 3 – no BPF Peak √(I2+Q2) at 58 for A and B Peak of k at 56, for A and B Waveform starts at 55

Single point calibration: Data set 3: no BPF Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Single point calibration: Data set 3: no BPF Peak √(I2+Q2) at 58 for A and B Peak of k at 56, for A and B Waveform starts at 55 Jitter A min: 0.226 at 56 Jitter B min: 0.214 at 56 Res lim min: 0.036 at 56

Second stage split: comparison of 3 data sets Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Second stage split: comparison of 3 data sets BPF on both BPF on A No BPF Jitter A min 0.196 ± 0.014 (58) 0.258 ± 0.018 (58) 0.226 ± 0.016 (56) Jitter B min 0.216 ± 0.015 (58) 0.260 ± 0.019 (56) 0.214 ± 0.015 (56) Resolution limit min 0.106 ± 0.007 (60) 0.332 ± 0.024 (59) 0.036 ± 0.003 (56) Resolution limit min accounting for attenuation 0.071 ± 0.005 (60) 0.222 ± 0.016 (59) 0.024 ± 0.002 (56) Sample number in brackets Neven’s result from October 2014 with splitter on first stage, no BPF: resolution limit 0.036 μm using single sample, 7.1dB splitter, no BPF, 0.8 x 1010 charge. Accounting for attenuation and at a charge of 0.4 x 1010 0.032 μm.

Integration calibration: second stage split Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Integration calibration: second stage split Integration method over range 49 to 81 (as performed at ATF in April), compared to the optimum window for minimum resolution limit on electronics. Data Calibration Jitter A (μm) Jitter B (μm) Res limit (μm) Res limit (μm) accounting for attenuation BPF on both Integration (49 to 81) 0.120 ± 0.008 0.123 ± 0.009 0.037 ± 0.003 0.025 ± 0.002 Integration (61 to 63) 0.135 ± 0.009 0.139 ± 0.010 0.024 ± 0.002 0.016 ± 0.001 BPF on A 0.129 ± 0.009 0.196 ± 0.014 0.185 ± 0.013 0.124 ± 0.009 Integration (59 to 60) 0.111 ± 0.008 0.183 ± 0.013 0.146 ± 0.010 0.097 ± 0.007 No BPF 0.157 ± 0.011 0.144 ± 0.010 0.035 ± 0.003 Integration (55 to 63) 0.181 ± 0.013 0.170 ± 0.012 0.011 ± 0.001

Multi-sample averaging Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Multi-sample averaging BPF on both BPF on A No BPF Single Sample Resolution Limit Min 0.071 ± 0.005 (60) 0.222 ± 0.016 (59) 0.024 ± 0.002 (56) Multi Sample Averaging Resolution Limit Min 0.036 ± 0.003 (55 to 62) 0.176 ± 0.013 (55 to 57) 0.020 ± 0.001 (55 to 57) Weighted Multi-Sample Averaging Resolution Limit Min 0.045 ± 0.003 (55 to 62) 0.183 ± 0.013 (55 to 57) 0.032 ± 0.002 (55 to 57) Sample numbers in brackets. All values accounting for attenuation in splitter.

Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Results summary 2-on-1 BPF study: minimum resolution limits (accounting for attenuation) using different calibration methods FIRST STAGE SPLIT SECOND STAGE SPLIT

Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Results summary Splitter on first stage, no BPF, replicating conditions of 2-on-1 study in October 2014. Single Sample: April 2015: 0.036 μm (7.1dB splitter, no BPF, 0.4 x 1010) October 2014: 0.036 μm (7.1dB splitter, no BPF, 0.8 x 1010 charge) Accounting for attenuation and setting charge at 0.4 x 1010: 0.032 μm Multi-Sample Averaging: April 2015: 0.031 μm October 2014: 0.023 μm Accounting for attenuation and setting charge at 0.4 x 1010: 0.020 μm

Calibration step noise Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Calibration step noise Different sample numbers. BPF on both second stage electronics. . 55 57 59 61 63

Calibration step noise Friday, 15 May 2015 Talitha Bromwich, FONT Group Meeting Calibration step noise Different sample numbers. No BPF. 55 57 59 61 63