1. Calibration summary Nov-Dec 09 R Apsimon

2. 10 Nov 09 Note, the power rail on the FONT5 board wasn’t working properly and so there is no good quality information to be had from this data, no point putting up the calibration plots P1P2P3 Cal 12.0257e-31.6213e-32.2445e-3 Cal 22.1321e-31.7727e-32.3436e-3

3. 19 Nov 09 FONT5 board sent off to UK for repairs, so using the FONT4 boards. P3 has a broken strip and so the data for this was unusable and therefore not shown.

4. 3 procs on 3 BPMs single-bunch

5. P1 3-bunch mode

6. P2 3-bunch mode

7. Summary P1P2 Single-bunch2.4739e-32.3805e-3 3-bunch2.2339e-3 2.2566e-3 2.2059e-3 2.3648e-3 2.3103e-3 2.3370e-3

8. 03 Dec 09 Strange nominal optics this week. Due to malfunction lattice file also not saved by control system. Running with 3 processors on 3 BPMs in 3-bunch mode for this shift.

9. P1

10. P2

11. P3

12. Summary P1P2P3 3-bunch2.7237e-3 2.7908e-3 2.9661e-3 2.7298e-3 2.6661e-3 2.6948e-3 3.6385e-3 3.6109e-3 3.3292e-3

13. 11 Dec 09 Using Machine LO, but it was jumping around a lot, causing the sampling to jump. Still trying to analyse the data from this set, but very difficult to remove the pulses sampled off-peak. How much time is worth devoting to ana

14. 17 Dec 09 FONT5, 4 processors on 3 BPMs. P2x and P2y for comparison. ZV6X for y-cal, ZH4X for x-cal. P2x channels were not sampling on peak and are on different ADC clocks, so the calibration constant is only approximate.

15. Y-calibration

16. P1 y calibration

17. P2 y calibration

18. P3 y calibration Haven’t yet investigated why this constant is so low.

19. Analysis on P2x Assumptions: –Sum and Diff signals gaussian within ±2.8ns –Sigma ~ 2.8ns Method –Add point either side of peak. This value approx. peak value within 1 sigma, maximum error ~ ±25%

20. Sum of points either side of peak

21. Gauss fit to sum signal

22. Estimation of peak position Using the assumptions stated earlier, can estimate how far the sample is off peak. –Won’t bore you with the maths… On diff peak, the line is very ratty at first, this is because the quadrature component makes the apparent position of the peak change, so method not reliable in this region.

23. Estimated peak position

24. Calibration constant Integrating across pulse, so calibration constant should tend to 0.0026 not 0.0022 as it does if sampling the peak. Taking into account the estimated peak positions and my peak value estimation, this constant will be multiplied by 1.128/1.262=0.894, which will give a “theoretical” calibration constant of 0.002324

25. P2x calibration This calibration is in good agreement with the “theoretical” value

26. Enlarged diff for P2x, bunch1 Note the top 3 positions appear to have a peak about midway between the 2 samples and the lower 3 positions’ peaks are varying due to the quad component

27. Enlarged sum for P2x, bunch1 Note the sum pulses are much closer to being on peak and all the pulses appear to be the same shape, implying the same peak

28. Bench test results LO at 14dBm, input: 650Mhz sine wave at 0dBm, split 2 ways with 1dB attenuation on arm into input A, no attenuation on arm into input B. Also displaying results from previous bench test

29. Bench test results 7dBm LO 650MHz input 14dBm LO 650MHz input 14dBm LO 700MHz input Proc 1Diff out26.6mV29.9mV44.3mV Sum Q5.38mV5.94mV7.98mV Sum I5.18mV5.94mV8.28mV Proc 3Diff out23.9mV26.96mV38.3mV Sum Q5.38mV6.08mV8.34mV Sum I5.18mV6.00mV8.70mV