1 / 24

Exercising emittance measurements in the ATF EXT line

Exercising emittance measurements in the ATF EXT line. J. Brossard / C. Rimbault / P. Bambade (LAL) http://flc-mdi.lal.in2p3.fr/. Upgrade of Annecy meeting slides …. ATF EXT line description & wire scanner position. 90°. 5 positions for wire scanners.

moswen
Télécharger la présentation

Exercising emittance measurements in the ATF EXT line

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Exercising emittance measurementsin the ATF EXT line J. Brossard / C. Rimbault / P. Bambade (LAL) http://flc-mdi.lal.in2p3.fr/ Upgrade of Annecy meeting slides ….

  2. ATF EXT line description& wire scanner position 90° 5 positions for wire scanners Each position is equipped with 3 wire scanners oriented at 0, 90 and 10° for y,x and 10° beam-size measurement. 10° 0° Wire thickness = 10 mm & 50 mm Diagnostic section (hx=hy =0) Diagnostic section (hx=hy =0)

  3. Evolution ofHorizontal & Vertical sqrt(beta) and phase functions along EXT line for nominal and modified EXT line. QM7

  4. Horizontal&Verticalbeam size at wire-scanner positions for nominal and modified EXT mad deck. y=2.10-11 m y= y(s) y=sqrt(yy) Wire thickness = 10 mm x=2.10-9 m x= x(s) x=sqrt(xx) Wire thickness = 50 mm

  5. Exercice : Run MAD with QM7 = Nominal value & QM7 = QM7-20% Remark : Only the K1 value is modified What about the dipole kick induce by the x-offset position in the quad ? At each wire scanner the beam matrix is computed (output from MAD) . A relative gaussian error on 11 33 13 is added (for 1000 succesives « measurements »): Where  varie from 0 to 30 Assuming no x-y coupling for nominal case ( =0) At present time, we assume that : 13= 10°

  6. The « 2D-emittance » reconstruction method is base on 3 different over-estiminated linear systems : Example for x measurement Beam matrix element at the reference input point A. Measurement of x at the 5 wire scanners (obtained with MAD deck where QM7=QM7-20%) Rij Linear transport coefficent (using QM7 nominal value) 10° measurements to defined 4 5 7 and 8 y measurements to defined 6 9 and 10 The Least Means Square Method (LMS) is used to find « the LMS solution ». Then the 2D projected emittancex and y are computed using :

  7. 2D projected emittances

  8. 4D intrinsinc emittances If is diagonalisable then Then the 2D projected emittancex and y are computed using :

  9. 4D intrinsinc emittances BUT …. Preliminary results…. Some mathematical point in MATLAB need to be understand. Rejection level :

  10. 2D projected emittances

  11. Next step : Modified the 10° measurement simulation using a tracking particles. END

  12. 4d - reconstruction method based on 5 wire scanner measurements 4d-beam matrix at point A : 4d-beam matrix at point B : Where is the 4D-linear optic matrix from point A to point B.

  13. 4d - reconstruction method based on 5 wire scanner measurements If the 4d-linear transport matrix from point A to B is uncoupled Then =(x-beam size @ B)2 =(y-beam size @ B)2 -> For « n » points (B,C,…Z), where the x beam size is measure, we have : If we know how to solve this linear system then, we can compute the horizontal emittance : Similar analysis can be performed to estimate : 4, to 10 … and y can be estimated.

  14. 4d - reconstruction method based on 5 wire scanner measurements If n<3 No solution. If n==3 and Mx-1 exist then the solution is known and unique. If n>3 the sytem is « overestimated » and the Least Mean Square (LMS) method can be used to find the «  LMS » solution. (in ATF n==5) First question : How sensitive to wire scanner errors this method is ? Second question : What happen if the QM6 quadrupole strength is reduce by 20% ?

  15. First question : How sensitive to wire scanner errors this method is ? Assumption : the relative error level on « measurements » at position MW0X, MW1X, MW2X, MW3X and MW4X is identical, and tested for values ranging between 0 and 30% Where « r » comes from a gaussian distribution having zero mean and X/100 rms The minimum relative error level for y-beam size measurement is at least equal to 13% (D/4~1.25 microns)

  16. First question : How sensitive to wire scanner errors this method is ? For each error level, 1000 « measure » have been tested. The plot shows the mean and +/- 1 rms rms value mean value The maximum relative errors (define by the rms value) on 11, 12, 22, 33, 34 and44 values are approximatively between -30% and +30%

  17. First question : How sensitive to wire scanner errors this method is ? Impact on horizontal and vertical emittance reconstruction …  This method leads to underestimate vertical and horizontal emittance. A part of the 1000 tested « measurements » lead to a unphysical results. In the current analysis, this rejection level is always lower than 4%. The underestimation of horizontal emittance is higher than the vertical one.

  18. The maximum error level on 11, 12, 22 and 44 is similar to the previous analysis (i.e : +/- 30%) The maximum error level on 33 and 34 reach +100 or +200% !!! Second question : What happen if the QM6 quadrupole strength is reduce by 20% ? QM6 is the first bending magnet (with quadrupole part) after the kicker. The quad. strength of this element might have been over-estimated…(TBC)

  19. Second question : What happen if the QM6 quadrupole strength is reduce by 20% ? Absolute values (m.rad) Absolute values (m.rad) relative values (%) Impact on horizontal and vertical emittance reconstruction … + 30% • In presence of WS error, the • horizontal emittance is sligthly underestimated • vertical emittance is greatly over-estimated. The rejection part increase… to reach 40% for error measurement of 30 %

  20. Quadrupole Strengh Variation method - 1 5 positions for wire scanners QD6X MW3X MW2X s11(mm2) s11(mm2) ex= 0.00201837 mm.mrad ex= 0.00201428 mm.mrad Preliminary

  21. Quadrupole Strengh Variation method - 2 5 positions for wire scanners QD6X MW3X MW2X s33(mm2) s33(mm2) ey= 2.01626e-05 mm.mrad ey= 2.0164e-05 mm.mrad Preliminary

  22. Conclusions and perspectives Conclusions and persepctives - For the nominal ATF-EXT line, the LMS* method based on the 5 existing wire scanners induced an underestimation of the vertical and horizontal emittance (function of WS error level). - If the QM6 quadrupole strength is underestimated (by 20%) then the LMS method based on the 5 existing wire scanner induced a « small » horizontal emittance reduction and a « large » vertical emittance estimation (function of WS error level). For QM7 quadrupole strength underestimation an symetric (x-y) effect is observed (see extra slide). - Compare the error sensitivity of the LMS reconstruction method with a « quadrupole strength variation » method. Questions - What are the real « quadrupole strength » of QM6 and QM7 (seen by the extracted bunch) ? - Is it possible to determine WS positions leading to less error sensitive reconstruction method ? - What is the sensitivity of « quadrupole strength variation » method ? (which quad ? which WS ?, new quad position ?, new WS position ? ….). - Is it possible to realize more than 3 measurement per WS to reduce the error level ? - others ideas ? … * LMS : Least Mean Square

  23. References Many thanks toMark Woodley for the input MAD file (see : http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~mdw/ATF/EXT.mad) References : ATF Internal reports : ATF-99-01, ATF-00-06, ATF-99-17, ATF-99-08, ATF-00-01…

  24. Extra-slide Absolute values (m.rad) Absolute values (m.rad) Relative values (%) QM6 quadrupole strength is reduce by 20%  + 30% QM7 quadrupole strength is reduce by 20%  (see M. Alabau Pons & al. Talk) + 10%

More Related