CLEAR’s Inductive Beam Position Monitors Scaling Factors and Signal Detection

CLEAR experimental beam-line

Scaling Factor Updates: New Charge Measurements (BPMs vs. ICTs) Obtained Approximate Scaling Factor Still waiting on the BI group for their scaling factor Acquisition Problems: Saturation of BPMs and ICTs inconsistently Last two BPMs constantly lower Laser shutter Klystron fall Scaling Factor

First Measurement 20-85 Bunches 820 above 45 (Saturates) ICT 3 saturates above 40 bunches Scaling Factors Observed BPM530vsICT2 = 2.74 BPM560vsICT2 = 2.85 BPM780vsICT3 = 2.56 BPM820vsICT3 = 2.42 Sigma = 0.17

Second Measurement 20-80 Bunches 780 and 820 linear until 40 (Saturate) All ICTs Saturated Scaling Factors Observed On 4 points BPM530vsICT2 = 2.27 BPM560vsICT2 = 2.33 On 3 points BPM780vsICT3 = 2.61 BPM820vsICT3 = 2.48

Third Measurement Changed Laser Shutter All linear 20-50 Bunches (Klystron Fell) Scaling Factors Observed On 4 points BPM530vsICT2 = 2.58 BPM560vsICT2 = 2.63 BPM780vsICT3 = 2.03 BPM820vsICT3 = 2.01

Fourth Measurement 20-100 Bunches ICTs linear 780 & 820 exhibited unexpected drop Scaling Factors Observed BPM530vsICT2 = 2.68 BPM560vsICT2 = 2.74 BPM780vsICT3 = 2.20 BPM820vsICT2 = 2.18

Scaling Factor: Conclusions Observed better data with shutter 2 Random saturations of BPMs and ICTs seems caused by it All the scan had scaling coeff. between 2.01 and 2.85 Needs to be cross-checked with the one from BI group Last two BPM constantly lower  Possible Transportation Issue

Signal Detection Improved Windowing: Automatic detection of window for position signals based on noise band Has to be scaled based on charge Has to be corrected for false positives Possibly adapted to bunch number as well Window for charge integration still manual and efficient—possibly improved later on