1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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)
0.123 ± 0.009
1.4854
0.125 ± 0.009
0.038 ± 0.003
0.025 ± 0.002
Integration (49 to 81)
0.120 ± 0.008
1.4843
0.037 ± 0.003
Seems to show good agreement. Differences may be due to different cuts (?)

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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: μm at 57
Jitter B min: μm at 56
Res lim min: μm at 56

9. 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

10. 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: μm at 57
Jitter B min: μm at 56
Res lim min: μm at 56

11. 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

12. 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: μm at 56
Jitter B min: μm at 56
Res lim min: μm at 56

13. 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 ± (57)
0.234 ± (57)
0.264 ± (56)
Jitter B min
0.228 ± (56)
0.236 ± (56)
0.253 ± (56)
Resolution limit min
0.071 ± (56)
0.158 ± (56)
0.082 ± (56)
Resolution limit min accounting for attenuation
0.031 ± (56)
0.070 ± 0.002(56)
0.036 ± (56)
Sample number in brackets
Neven’s result from October 2014 with splitter on first stage, no BPF: resolution limit 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 μm.

14. 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 ±
Integration (55 to 60)
0.189 ± 0.004
0.177 ± 0.004
0.030 ± 0.001 ±
BPF on A
0.194 ± 0.004
0.178 ± 0.004
0.035 ± 0.001 ±
Integration (56 to 63)
0.205 ± 0.005
0.195 ± 0.004
0.026 ± 0.001 ±
No BPF
0.162 ± 0.004
0.060 ± 0.001 ±
Integration (55 to 58)
0.219 ± 0.005
0.213 ± 0.005
0.029 ± 0.001 ±

15. 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 ± (56)
0.070 ± (56)
0.036 ± (56)
Multi Sample Averaging Resolution Limit Min
± (55 to 56)
± (55 to 57)
0.031 ± (56 to 57)
Weighted Multi-Sample Averaging Resolution Limit Min
± (55 to 56)
± (55 to 57)
Sample numbers in brackets. All values accounting for attenuation in splitter.

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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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: μm at 58
Jitter B min: μm at 58
Res lim min: μm at 60

20. 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

21. 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: μm at 58
Jitter B min: μm at 56
Res lim min: μm at 59

22. 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

23. 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: at 56
Jitter B min: at 56
Res lim min: at 56

24. 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 ± (58)
0.258 ± (58)
0.226 ± (56)
Jitter B min
0.216 ± (58)
0.260 ± (56)
0.214 ± (56)
Resolution limit min
0.106 ± (60)
0.332 ± (59)
0.036 ± (56)
Resolution limit min accounting for attenuation
0.071 ± (60)
0.222 ± (59)
0.024 ± (56)
Sample number in brackets
Neven’s result from October 2014 with splitter on first stage, no BPF: resolution limit 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 μm.

25. 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

26. 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 ± (60)
0.222 ± (59)
0.024 ± (56)
Multi Sample Averaging Resolution Limit Min
0.036 ± (55 to 62)
0.176 ± (55 to 57)
0.020 ± (55 to 57)
Weighted Multi-Sample Averaging Resolution Limit Min
0.045 ± (55 to 62)
0.183 ± (55 to 57)
0.032 ± (55 to 57)
Sample numbers in brackets. All values accounting for attenuation in splitter.

27. 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

28. 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: μm (7.1dB splitter, no BPF, 0.4 x 1010)
October 2014: μm (7.1dB splitter, no BPF, 0.8 x 1010 charge)
Accounting for attenuation and setting charge at 0.4 x 1010: μm
Multi-Sample Averaging:
April 2015: μm
October 2014: μm
Accounting for attenuation and setting charge at 0.4 x 1010: μm

29. 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

30. 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