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

2. CLEAR experimental beam-line

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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