1ben constance7 th january 2010 font5 december 2009 feedback results during the final shift we ran...

23
1 Ben Constance 7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback • 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles on • 5 gain settings with charge normalisation (2000 – 2400) • 8 ZV6X settings at each gain to generate t-shirt data (~250 micron range in P2) • Some gain settings taken with interleaved feedback on/off • To save time, some settings were only FB on with occasional FB off runs taken Additionally, throughout: • Calibration constant of 0.0022 used • Low bunch charge cut by threshold • Fliers removed at 3 sigma • All averages over ~50 pulses per point

Upload: randolf-ford

Post on 14-Jan-2016

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

1Ben Constance 7th January 2010

FONT5 December 2009 feedback results

• During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback

• 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles on

• 5 gain settings with charge normalisation (2000 – 2400)

• 8 ZV6X settings at each gain to generate t-shirt data (~250 micron range in P2)

• Some gain settings taken with interleaved feedback on/off

• To save time, some settings were only FB on with occasional FB off runs taken

• Additionally, throughout:

• Calibration constant of 0.0022 used

• Low bunch charge cut by threshold

• Fliers removed at 3 sigma

• All averages over ~50 pulses per point

Page 2: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

2Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Baseline subtraction effects

• The firmware does NOT subtract baseline when forming feedback signal

• The true position y0 is:

• While feedback sees:

• With calibration constant of 0.0022:

Σ0 ~ 300

∆b ~Σb ~ 30

Charge - dependent

Page 3: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

3Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Gain setting

• Gain set to converge on yFB = 0

• Decided in FONT meeting to add GUI switch to disable base subtraction in plots

• Previous shift data suggested gain ~2200 to give yFB = 0

• In real terms, feedback converges on -∆b / (Σ0 + Σb) [few micron variation]

• Dotted line shows the average position to which the feedback should converge

• To avoid confusion, all following plots are analysed with baseline subtraction, i.e. they correspond the true position

Analysed with baseline subtraction

Analysed without baseline subtraction

Page 4: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

4Ben Constance 7th January 2010

T-shirt plots

• Following 8 slides show t-shirt plots for gain -2100

• Gain -2100 gave best results

• Each point averaged over ~50 pulses

• Error bars show the RMS jitter

• Data are interleaved feedback on/off

Page 5: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

5Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Page 6: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

6Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Page 7: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

7Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Page 8: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

8Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Page 9: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

9Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Page 10: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

10Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Page 11: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

11Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Page 12: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

12Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Kicker probably saturating

Page 13: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

13Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Gain comparison

• Overlaid T-shirt plots

• Data with feedback on at each corrector setting are overlaid on the next 5 slides

• One plot for each gain setting

• Staircase plots

• The final 5 slides show the equivalent staircase plots in P2

Page 14: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

14Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Page 15: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

15Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Page 16: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

16Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Page 17: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

17Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Page 18: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

18Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Page 19: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

19Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Page 20: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

20Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Page 21: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

21Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Page 22: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

22Ben Constance 7th January 2010

Page 23: 1Ben Constance7 th January 2010 FONT5 December 2009 feedback results During the final shift we ran K1-to-P2 position feedback 151.2ns bunch spacing, quadrupoles

23Ben Constance 7th January 2010