LHC Clock Phase Stability: is it an issue?  It seems that the LHC clock phase might drift relative to the beam crossing  What can we tolerate, and will.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
ATLAS Tile Calorimeter Performance Henric Wilkens (CERN), on behalf of the ATLAS collaboration.
Advertisements

Do we need fine time in NA62? Fine time means greater accuracy than the system clock of 25 ns. YES Here are some reasons we need to match identified kaons.
Stats for Engineers Lecture 11. Acceptance Sampling Summary One stage plan: can use table to find number of samples and criterion Two stage plan: more.
Listening to Voices The voice of the process measurement over time.
LHCb PatVeloTT Performance Adam Webber. Why Upgrade?  Currently we de-focus the beams o LHCb Luminosity ~ 2x10 32 cm -2 s -1 o ~ 1 interaction per bunch.
Review: What influences confidence intervals?
30 March Global Mice Particle Identification Steve Kahn 30 March 2004 Mice Collaboration Meeting.
1 Analysis of TOF data Yordan Karadzhov St.Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia.
5 Qubits Error Correcting Shor’s code uses 9 qubits to encode 1 qubit, but more efficient codes exist. Given our error model where errors can be any of.
February 8 th, 2001 Status Report: SciFi for MICE Edward McKigney Imperial College London.
RF Systems and Stability Linac Coherent Light Source Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.
February 19th 2009AlbaNova Instrumentation Seminar1 Christian Bohm Instrumentation Physics, SU Upgrading the ATLAS detector Overview Motivation The current.
An Ultra Low Power DLL Design
Field and Phase Error Studies in Normal Conducting Structures LLRF and Beam Dynamics in Hadron Linacs – EuCARD2 Workshop Ciprian Plostinar
The ATLAS Pixel Detector - Running Experience – Markus Keil – University of Geneva on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration Vertex 2009 Putten, Netherlands,
IPBSM status and plan ATF project meeting M.Oroku.
1 Luminosity monitor and LHC operation H. Burkhardt AB/ABP, TAN integration workshop, 10/3/2006 Thanks for discussions and input from Enrico Bravin, Ralph.
Jornadas LIP 2008 – Pedro Ramalhete. 17 m hadron absorber vertex region 8 MWPCs 4 trigger hodoscopes toroidal magnet dipole magnet hadron absorber targets.
Optimizing DHCAL single particle energy resolution Lei Xia Argonne National Laboratory 1 LCWS 2013, Tokyo, Japan November , 2013.
C. Seez Imperial College November 28th, 2002 ECAL testbeam Workshop 1 Pulse Reconstruction Worth considering the experience of other experiments using.
SVY 207: Lecture 13 Ambiguity Resolution
Status of the Beam Phase and Intensity Monitor for LHCb Richard Jacobsson Zbigniew Guzik Federico Alessio TFC Team: Motivation Aims Overview of the board.
07-JUL-2003LEADE / JW1 Satellite bunches in the LHC Satellite “definition” Satellite luminosity Satellite detection & tolerances J. Wenninger AB/OP.
11 Sep 2009Paul Dauncey1 TPAC test beam analysis tasks Paul Dauncey.
Ideas about Tests and Sequencing C.N.P.Gee Rutherford Appleton Laboratory 3rd March 2001.
FED RAL: Greg Iles5 March The 96 Channel FED Tester What needs to be tested ? Requirements for 96 channel tester ? Baseline design Functionality.
LCLS_II High Rep Rate Operation and Femtosecond Timing J. Frisch 7/22/15.
08-June-2006 / Mayda M. VelascoCALOR Chicago1 Initial Calibration for the CMS Hadronic Calorimeter Barrel Mayda M. Velasco Northwestern University.
Some thoughts on the New Small Wheel Trigger Issues V. Polychronakos, BNL 10 May,
Chapter 9: Hypothesis Tests Based on a Single Sample 1.
Photon Flux Control Liping Gan UNCW. Outline PrimEx-  experiment requirement Tagged photon Procedure to obtain the number of tagged photons Relative.
Philip Burrows ATF2 project meeting 14/1/111 Plans for ATF2 IP Feedback Philip Burrows, Colin Perry John Adams Institute Oxford University.
CERN, 18 december 2003Coincidence Matrix ASIC PRR Coincidence ASIC modifications E.Petrolo, R.Vari, S.Veneziano INFN-Rome.
(s)T3B Update – Calibration and Temperature Corrections AHCAL meeting– December 13 th 2011 – Hamburg Christian Soldner Max-Planck-Institute for Physics.
1 Nick Sinev, ALCPG March 2011, Eugene, Oregon Investigation into Vertex Detector Resolution N. B. Sinev University of Oregon, Eugene.
Beam-beam compensation at RHIC LARP Proposal Tanaji Sen, Wolfram Fischer Thanks to Jean-Pierre Koutchouk, Frank Zimmermann.
22 January 2009 David1 Look at dead material and fake MET in Jx samples mc08 10 TeV simulations, release J0 to J6 are tag s479_r586, ‘ideal geometry’
15/6/2006Gaia Lanfranchi - LNF-INFN1 Why do we have to measure efficiencies in the Muon Detector? Muon Software Meeting, June 15th G. Lanfranchi LNF-INFN.
Ideas for Super LHC tracking upgrades 3/11/04 Marc Weber We have been thinking and meeting to discuss SLHC tracking R&D for a while… Agenda  Introduction:
Philip Burrows ATF2 project meeting 1/07/101 Plans for ATF2 IP Feedback Philip Burrows, Colin Perry John Adams Institute Oxford University.
M. Bonesini - CM 22 RAL October 081 TOF0 status M. Bonesini Sezione INFN Milano Bicocca.
DREAM Coll. Meeting, Rome 2009F. Bedeschi, INFN-Pisa Template Analysis of DRS Data  Motivations  Preliminary results F. Bedeschi, R. Carosi, M. Incagli,
Hybrid Fast-Ramping Synchrotron to 750 GeV/c J. Scott Berg Brookhaven National Laboratory MAP Collaboration Meeting March 5, 2012.
Tailoring the ESS Reliability and Availability needs to satisfy the users Enric Bargalló WAO October 27, 2014.
Path Length Difference Study R. Apsimon. Assumptions Assume input signals vary sinusoidally (good approximation after BPF). Input signal arrives at a.
Timing and synchronisation J. Jones, A. Moss and E.W. Snedden April/May 2015.
Luminosity monitor and LHC operation
Experiments, Simulations Confidence Intervals
LHC Wire Scanner Calibration
LCLS_II High Rep Rate Operation and Femtosecond Timing
Cryo Problem MD Planning Tue (1.11.) C B Day Time MD MP Tue 01:00
NanoBPM Progress January 12, 2005 Steve Smith.
Emittance Dilution and Preservation in the ILC RTML
L0TP studies Clock and distribution Scheme Busy handling
Status report of the ATLAS SCT optical links
Tolerances: Origins, Requirements, Status and Feasibility
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Time-dependent analyses at D0-D0 threshold
Clk_ch4 Clk_ch3 Clk_ch2 Clk_ch1 L1A global L1A _ch T0+T0r
Status of the TOF Detector
Synchronization Policy: HCAL will follow ECAL as much as possible
Damping Ring Kicker Tests at AØ
Instrumentation for Colliding Beam Physics 2017
Intra-Pulse Beam-Beam Scans at the NLC IP
Review: What influences confidence intervals?
Phase Feedforward in 2015 & Plans for 2016
Limits on damping times
Feed forward orbit corrections for the CLIC RTML
Type I and Type II Errors
Beam Stability of the LHC Beam Transfer Line TI 8
Presentation transcript:

LHC Clock Phase Stability: is it an issue?  It seems that the LHC clock phase might drift relative to the beam crossing  What can we tolerate, and will this be achievable?

Alan WatsonUK Level-1 Meeting, RAL, 10/10/012 Geneva, we have a problem… Doesn’t the TTC solve this for us?  Not if it is the LHC clock itself which drifts relative to the beam phase. Possible effects:  Reduced FIR BCID efficiency  Failure of saturated pulse BCID  Degraded E T resolution

Alan WatsonUK Level-1 Meeting, RAL, 10/10/013 Tolerances From studies by PBT & Ullrich Pfeiffer:  FIR BCID can tolerate ±5ns – BCID efficiency more sensitive than E T resolution  Leading-edge saturated pulse BCID fails at ±5ns – Probably strongest limit  Both tested with em-like pulses – may be worse with hadronic?

Alan WatsonUK Level-1 Meeting, RAL, 10/10/014 Other sources of variation We anticipated several sources:  cable length variations – PPr can re-align phases  time of flight variation – some p T dependence cannot be corrected  cell-to-cell timing differences within towers – cannot correct for these – specified to be <±2.5ns

Alan WatsonUK Level-1 Meeting, RAL, 10/10/015 Drift vs Jitter? What we can tolerate depends on period:  “Jitter” (bc to bc variation): – effect depends of fraction of pulses outside tolerance (i.e. length of tails)  Short-term drift (minutes to hours): – most dangerous: coherent effect on all events  Long-term drift (days to months) – can recalibrate for this

Alan WatsonUK Level-1 Meeting, RAL, 10/10/016 So, what can we tolerate? Assume other sources < 3 ns  Jitter < ±2ns absolute (e.g.  < 350 ps) or  drift < ±2ns on period less than recalibration or  appropriate mixture of the two Limits depend on tolerable error rate  assume rather low for saturated pulses

Alan WatsonUK Level-1 Meeting, RAL, 10/10/017 Effect on sLHC? It’s worse at cm -2 s -1  assumption is 12.5ns beam crossing interval  will want to run 80 MHz BCID  tolerance on phase variation will be reduced – approximately halved  LHC clock drift tolerance may be very low indeed

Alan WatsonUK Level-1 Meeting, RAL, 10/10/018 So, where do we stand? Nick is collecting requirements:  I’ve given him the figures from slide 6 What can the machine do?  No idea – anyone else? Are others more sensitive?  See above

Alan WatsonUK Level-1 Meeting, RAL, 10/10/019 Could we monitor phase? Question from Nick:  Can we monitor clock phase by analysing time frame data? – given enough data, I think so – best to use higher-E T (non-saturated) pulses – monitoring jitter trickier

Alan WatsonUK Level-1 Meeting, RAL, 10/10/0110 Conclusions Not much tolerance left:  Calorimeter readout uses up much of it Don’t know what LHC can provide:  Best we can do is set an adequately tough requirement We may be able to monitor drift:  Needs some thought, but seems feasible in principle