LCABD WP 4.2 – Spectrometer and BPM Studies

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
BPM Energy Spectrometry for ILC Bino Maiheu University College London for LC-ABD WP 4.2 LC-ABD Meeting IPPP Durham, 26 September 2006 LC-ABD Meeting, 26.
Advertisements

SLAC - End Station A ILC testrun – April '06 Bino Maiheu University College London Overview, status, results and future plans Dubna meeting May
LCABD WP 4.2 Review, 24 th September Mark Slater Motivation Final Results from 2006 Upgrades for 2007 Conclusions The Collaboration LCABD WP 4.2.
Energy spectrometer cavity BPM Royal Holloway, University of London S. Boogert, G. Boorman University of Cambridge M. Slater, M. Thomson & D. Ward University.
BPM Energy spectrometry, status & future plans at ESA in SLAC Bino Maiheu University College London Yerevan Collaboration Meeting October 2006 Yerevan.
Progress report for the energy spectrometer test experiment at ESA at SLAC Bino Maiheu on behalf of the T474/T491 collaboration LCWS 2007, DESY Hamburg.
LCABD WP 4.2 Review, 12 th April Mark Slater  Motivation  BPM and Electronics Development  BPM Simulation  Update on NanoBPM Progress  Update.
BPM Energy Spectrometry for the International Linear Collider Bino Maiheu for Alex, Stew, Fil, Steve, Matthew & David UCL – HEP group meeting 29 September.
Fast and Precise Beam Energy Measurement at the International Linear Collider Michele Viti.
ATLAS Tile Calorimeter Performance Henric Wilkens (CERN), on behalf of the ATLAS collaboration.
SLAC, 5-Dec-2006 Magnets and Magnetic Measurements for Prototype Energy Spectrometer T-474.
Beam position monitors LCABD Plenary meeting Bristol, 24th March 2009 A. Aryshev, S. T. Boogert, G. Boorman, S. Molloy, N. Joshi JAI at Royal Holloway.
WP 4.2 review meeting Status of the ESA work... Wednesday, 13 September 2006, UCL,
Sta bilization of the F inal F ocus : Stabilization with Nano-Meter Precision.
StaFF: Motion Stabilization with Nano-Meter Precision Proposed experiment conducted within framework of StaFF (Stabilization of Final Focus for ILC). Funded.
ATF2 Progress Report For CLIC Workshop Kiyoshi KUBO.
Progress towards nanometre-level beam stabilisation at ATF2 N. Blaskovic, D. R. Bett, P. N. Burrows, G. B. Christian, C. Perry John Adams Institute, University.
NanoBPM schedule California Institute of Technology Toyoko Orimoto Cornell University Robert Meller DESY Vladimir Vogel KEK Hitoshi Hayano, Yosuke Honda,
ATF2 Q-BPM System 19 Dec Fifth ATF2 Project Meeting J. May, D. McCormick, T. Smith (SLAC) S. Boogert (RH) B. Meller (Cornell) Y. Honda (KEK)
High Resolution Cavity BPM for ILC final focal system (IP-BPM) ILC2007/LCWS 2007 BDS, 2007/6/1 The University of Tokyo, KEK, Tohoku Gakuin University,
Alignment and Beam Stability
Ultra-Low Emittance Storage Ring David L. Rubin December 22, 2011.
12/12/04 1 Stewart Boogert (UCL) Second Mini-workshop Nano project at ATF UK plans for Energy spectrometer studies University College London Stewart Boogert.
Status of QBPM Electronics and Magnet Movers as of June 3 rd 2008 D. McCormick, J Nelson, G White SLAC S Boogert Royal Holloway Y. Honda, Y.Inoue KEK.
Feedback on Nanosecond Timescales (FONT) - Review of Feedback Prototype Tests at ATF(KEK) Glenn Christian John Adams Institute, Oxford for FONT collaboration.
David Urner, Oxford University, RHUL – June StaFF Stabilization of Final Focus Motion Stabilization with Nano-Meter Precision David Urner Paul Coe.
UK/EU Plans for ATF2 G.A. Blair ATF2-IN2P3-KEK kick-0ff meeting, Annecy, 8 th October 2006 Overview EUROTeV UK.
WP9 : Cavity BPM spectrometry Royal Holloway S. Boogert & G. Boorman University College London D. Attree, A. Lyapin, B. Maiheu & M. Wing Cambridge University.
January 8, 2005Mike Hildreth – ILC-MDI Workshop A BPM-Based Energy Spectrometer Technical Considerations & Plans for the End Station A Test Beam Mike Hildreth.
NanoBPM Signals Second Mini-Workshop on Nano Project at ATF December 11-12, 2004 Toyoko Orimoto Yury Kolomensky Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory & University.
BPM-Based Energy Spectrometer Contributors: A. Lyapin, B. Maiheu, F. Gournaris, D. Attree, M. Wing, D. Miller University College London (UCL) M. Slater,
Energy calibration at LHC J. Wenninger. Motivation In general there is not much interest for accurate knowledge of the momentum in hadron machines. 
Energy Spectrometer for the ILC Alexey Lyapin University College London.
1 ATF2 Q BPM electronics Specification (Y. Honda, ) Design System –Hardware layout –Software –Calibration Testing Production schedule ATF2 electronics.
A Short History of Nearly Everything Michele Viti.
Production and Installation Policy of IP-BPM ATF2 Project Meeting, 2006/12/18 Y. Honda, Y. Inoue, T. Hino, T. Nakamura.
The stabilisation of the final focus (StaFF) system Sun 12 th March 2006 MDI – LCWS06 at I I Sc Bangalore David Urner, Paul Coe, Armin Reichold.
1 ATF 2 Nanobpm (Q BPM) Electronics. Mark Slater: Cambridge Yury Kolomensky, Toyoko Orimoto: UCB Stewart Boogert, Steve Malton, Alexi Liapine: UCL Mike.
SLAC ESA T-474 ILC BPM energy spectrometer prototype Bino Maiheu University College London on behalf of T-474 Vancouver Linear Collider.
Magnetic Field Stability Measurements Joe DiMarco 23Oct07.
An electron/positron energy monitor based on synchrotron radiation. I.Meshkov, T. Mamedov, E. Syresin, An electron/positron energy monitor based on synchrotron.
ATF2 beam operation status Toshiyuki OKUGI, KEK The 9 th TB&SGC meeting KEK, 3-gokan Seminar Hall 2009/ 12/ 16.
Simulations - Beam dynamics in low emittance transport (LET: From the exit of Damping Ring) K. Kubo
May 31, 2005Mike Hildreth – ATF 2005 Energy Spectrometry and ATF Components of the nano-BPM Test Program and Plans for Future Tests Mike Hildreth University.
CERN, 27-Mar EuCARD NCLinac Task /3/2009.
G.R.White: F.O.N. T. From Ground Motion studies by A.Seryi et al. (SLAC) ‘Fast’ motion (> few Hz) dominated by cultural noise Concern for structures.
IoP HEPP/APP annual meeting 2010 Feedback on Nanosecond Timescales: maintaining luminosity at future linear colliders Ben Constance John Adams Institute,
Instrumentation at ATF / TTF Accelerator Test Facility (KEK) Tesla Test Facility – FLASH (DESY) ESA / LCLS (SLAC) Marc Ross, SLAC.
1 ATF2 Q-BPM Magnet Movers & 1 st Pulse Calibration Progress from May 7-11 J. May, D. McCormick, T.Smith (SLAC) S. Boogert (RH)
Accuracy of the orbit measurement by KEKB BPM system for the study of ILC damping ring H. Fukuma (KEK) Requirement for the accuracy of BPM data.
Current Status of QBPM Electronics and Magnet Movers D. McCormick, J Nelson, G White SLAC S Boogert Royal Holloway Y. Honda, Y.Inoue KEK.
Effects of Accelerating Cavities on On-Line Dispersion Free Steering in the Main Linac of CLIC Effects of Accelerating Cavities on On-Line Dispersion Free.
Alignment and stability session
Alignment and beam-based correction
Dither Luminosity feedback versus Fast IP feedback
Glen White, SLAC Jan th ATF2 Project Meeting, KEK
NanoBPM Progress January 12, 2005 Steve Smith.
CLIC Workshop 2016: Main Beam Cavity BPM
Optimization of Triplet Field Quality in Collision
ATF nanoBPM system - nanoGrid ATF2 Movers TTF HOM – dipole / monopole
BPM-Based Energy Spectrometer
Beam Optics Set-Up at SLAC End Station A
Cavity BPMs at Diamond S. Boogert, A. Lyapine (UCL), G. Rehm
Damping Ring Kicker Tests at AØ
Bunch Tiltmeter Steve Smith SLAC Snowmass July 16, 2001 Update date
Phase Feedforward in 2015 & Plans for 2016
NanoBPM Status and Multibunch Mark Slater, Cambridge University
SLAC - End Station A ILC testrun – April '06 ...
Beam-Based Alignment Results
Feed forward orbit corrections for the CLIC RTML
Presentation transcript:

LCABD WP 4.2 – Spectrometer and BPM Studies Motivation Final Results from 2006 Upgrades for 2007 Conclusions The Collaboration Royal Holloway, University of London (RHUL) Stewart Boogert, Gary Boorman University of Cambridge, UK Mark Thomson, Mark Slater, David Ward University College, London (UCL) Derek Attree, Filimon Gournais, Alexey Lyapin, Bino Maiheu, David Miller, Matthew Wing ` LCABD WP 4.2 Review, 24th September 2007 - Mark Slater

Motivation – Physics Case Uncertainty on beam energy measurement contributes directly to the uncertainty on the ILC physics output... Need for: Energy measurement accuracy 10-4 Stability and ease of operation Minimal impact on physics data taking LCABD WP 4.2 Review, 24th September 2007 - Mark Slater

Motivation – Beam Based Energy Measurement WP 4.2 Goals: Study and design magnetic chicane for beam energy measurement using BPMs for a future linear collider δE/E ~ 10-4 At least δx~ 500 nm needed η ~ 5 mm at center BPM BPM BPM NanoBPM at ATF: test resolution, try different analysis methods, BPM stability tests, multibunch operation, advanced electronics techniques, inclination of beam in BPMs ESA at ATF: test stability and operational issues with a full implementation of 4 magnet chicane and 3 BPM stations LCABD WP 4.2 Review, 24th September 2007 - Mark Slater

NanoBPM Update – Results ~8 hours Temperature Frequency changes over the course of 8 hours have been correlated with temperature changes of the BPMs The change seen is in reasonable agreement with that predicted from thermal expansion arguments ~60kHz ~0.25C Resolution Results Best resolution recorded so far was during April '06: Position: 15.6nm Tilt: 2.1rad From simulation work, electronic, thermal and vibrational noise not dominant. Now published in NIM: A578:1-22,2007 LCABD WP 4.2 Review, 24th September 2007 - Mark Slater

ESA 2006 (T474) Update Final analysis of the data taken in 2006 is almost complete A lot has been learned from this data: Algorithm optimisation Calibration optimisation Dominant Systematics Required hardware upgrades LCABD WP 4.2 Review, 24th September 2007 - Mark Slater

ESA 2006 (T474) Results – Calibration Stability Two types of calibration were used Corrector – enables calibration of all BPMs Mover – Accurate steps and can use outer BPMs to remove beam jitter More accurate calibrations could be found by using the mover calibration for one BPM to correct the those of the others Mover Cals Over a 20 hour period, the variation in calibration constants were found to be: Frequency: ~5kHz IQ Phase: 0.01 rad Scale: ~1% Given a typical offset of ~200 m, this was predicted to have the following effect Precision: ~150nm Accuracy: ~2-10μm Corrector Cals LCABD WP 4.2 Review, 24th September 2007 - Mark Slater

ESA 2006 (T474) Results – Short Term Precision Stability BPMs 9-11 Linked NOTE: All values in μm `Linked' refers to predicting the position at BPM 3 using BPMs 1-2 and 9-11 * Geometric Factor not removed LCABD WP 4.2 Review, 24th September 2007 - Mark Slater

ESA 2006 (T474) Results – Long Term Precision Stability BPMs 3-5 BPMs 9-11 NOTE: All values in μm `Linked' refers to predicting the position at BPM 3 using BPMs 1-2 and 9-11 The stability test was extended over a 20 hour period BPMs 1 and 2 were limited by the thermal stability of the electronics BPM 11 had a significant shift in frequency and a consequent change in calibration after 8 hours * Results from only 8 hours rather than 20 hours LCABD WP 4.2 Review, 24th September 2007 - Mark Slater

ESA 2006 (T474) Results – Systematics Several systematic sources were investigated Temperature Magnetic Field Vibrational Motion Charge Offset Temperature was found to be limiting the stability for most BPMs due to a change in calibration The Earth's field was found to produce an offset of 1.2 μm with a change in energy of 200 MeV Vibrational Motion was found to dominate the precision of BPM 4 There was some slight dependence of the residuals on position and charge Temperature Variation - ESA Temperature Variation – CHA Energy Variation vs. BPM Offset FFT of Vibrational Motion LCABD WP 4.2 Review, 24th September 2007 - Mark Slater

ESA 2006 (T474) – Conclusions The algorithms and systems used during 2006 running have been optimised to achieve the best precision and stability of the BPMs Precision of 250nm or better has been achieved and maintained for several BPMs over a minimum of 1 hour and a maximum of 8 hours Limitations on these results was found to be due to Electronic Noise Vibrational Motion Temperature Induced Calibration Changes All analysis for this paper has been completed using the `home-grown' libbpm library and has proved this code is ready for deployment in both online and offline systems A NIM paper is in its third (and hopefully final) draft Submission planned for end of September/beginning of October LCABD WP 4.2 Review, 24th September 2007 - Mark Slater

ESA 2007 (T491) – Progress in 2007 A number of upgrades were carried out at ESA preceding this years running These included UK BPM, Mover and electronics Calibration Tone Calibration routine using Helmholtz Coils The major part of the upgrade was the installation of the four dipole magnets that formed a working spectrometer prototype Zygo Interferometer Location of UK BPM LCABD WP 4.2 Review, 24th September 2007 - Mark Slater

ESA 2007 (T491) – UK Hardware An entire BPM system including mover and electronics has been designed and built by the group Installation of the electronics was performed in early 2007 with the BPM and mover installed in time for the July run The electronics were tested on BPMs already present (9-11) and comparable precisions were found as with the SLAC electronics (~150nm) The mover and read back system was tested using the interferometer and was shown to work to a high degree of accuracy The BPM showed considerable cross-talk due to manufacturing problems A precision of 1.5 – 2 μm was achieved. See Bino's talk for more info on the UK equipment and future plans... Electronics Mover BPM LCABD WP 4.2 Review, 24th September 2007 - Mark Slater

ESA 2007 (T491) – Calibration Tone The installed UK BPM electronics also included a CW calibration tone that could be used to check gain and phase variation The signal was split to go through the electronics of all the BPMs Using the 0.1 Hz trigger supplied by the SLAC control system, `online' calibration drifts could be corrected Initial (offline) checks have been made showing the variation of gain and phase with temperature (M. Christiakova/Berkeley) Amplitude vs. Temperature Phase vs. Temperature LCABD WP 4.2 Review, 24th September 2007 - Mark Slater

ESA 2007 (T491) – Helmholtz Calibration Calibrating using the upstream steel correctors was found to be inaccurate due to drifts in the beam position during a cal step Another method was implemented that involved using helmholtz coils These could reach the desired field strength almost instantly and therefore a dithering calibration could be used Instead of averaging over 50-100 events in each step, the scale was determined for a cal consisting of 5 events per step The scales were then averaged over several cals resulting in an improvement of scale variation from 40% to 5-10% ADC values were set indicating the position in the cal cycle allowing automation of the calibration Position vs. Time ADC vs. Time LCABD WP 4.2 Review, 24th September 2007 - Mark Slater

ESA Update – Initial Spectrometer Results Residual Field vs. Chicane Length (vertical) (S. Kostromin/Dubna) The magnets were profiled in Nov. 06 Field Integral RMS Stability: 60ppm Bdl relative RMS Stability: 100ppm The beam energy was changed and the central BPMs moved to follow the deflection Step were clearly seen and could be correlated with the upstream `Energy BPM' Current energy resolution: ~10 MeV Energy vs. Time LCABD WP 4.2 Review, 24th September 2007 - Mark Slater

LCABD WP 4.2 – Conclusions The work completed in 2006 at both ATF and ESA has been written up and has either been or will be published. In summary, we have demonstrated: 15.6nm position resolution within a triplet ~800nm position resolution across a 40m beamline Stability within a triplet of a few hundred nm over 1-8 hours An understanding of the systematic issues dominating the BPMs In 2007, the following was achieved at ESA: Installation and commissioning of UK BPM, Mover and Electronics Improved calibration scheme Introduction of a calibration tone to improve on results from 2006 Installation and operation of a full spectrometer chicane Now on to LCABD2... LCABD WP 4.2 Review, 24th September 2007 - Mark Slater