Post on 28-Jan-2016
description
MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011 11
Global analysis of MTE and CT Global analysis of MTE and CT beams in PS and SPSbeams in PS and SPS
S. Gilardoni, M. Giovannozzi, M. NewmanS. Gilardoni, M. Giovannozzi, M. Newman
InroductionInroduction
Analysis of PS performance in 2010 for MTE and CTAnalysis of PS performance in 2010 for MTE and CT
Analysis of SPS performance in 2010 for MTE and CTAnalysis of SPS performance in 2010 for MTE and CT
Programme of the coming daysProgramme of the coming days
MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011 22
Introduction - IIntroduction - I
Aim: quantitative comparison of MTE vs. CT Aim: quantitative comparison of MTE vs. CT in PS and SPS and correlation studies.in PS and SPS and correlation studies.Approach:Approach:
PSPSEvaluate extraction efficiency. This is obtained from Evaluate extraction efficiency. This is obtained from the BCT for circulating and several BCTs in the TT2 the BCT for circulating and several BCTs in the TT2 transfer line.transfer line.Evaluate trapping efficiency, i.e., the amount of Evaluate trapping efficiency, i.e., the amount of beam in each island normalised to the total intensity. beam in each island normalised to the total intensity. This is obtained from a number of BCTs in TT2 This is obtained from a number of BCTs in TT2 capable of measuring intensity vs. time over the five capable of measuring intensity vs. time over the five extracted turns.extracted turns.
SPSSPSEvaluate transmission between different times Evaluate transmission between different times in the cycle.in the cycle.
MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011 33
Introduction - IIIntroduction - II
Some comments: Some comments: The SPS RF experts suggested to use The SPS RF experts suggested to use also the duty factor as figure-of-merit to also the duty factor as figure-of-merit to understand the beam performance. It is understand the beam performance. It is defined as:defined as:
An analytical estimate for the duty factor An analytical estimate for the duty factor for an MTE-generated spill with trapping for an MTE-generated spill with trapping efficiency x is given by:efficiency x is given by:
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
836.001 836.003 836.005 836.007 836.009 836.011 836.013
Inte
nsity
(1010
)
Time (ms)
Single frequency (average over 16 data sets)
No excitation (1 data set)
Noise (average over 9 data sets)
T
T
dttI
dttI
T
0
2
2
0
)(
))((1
220815
1
xx
MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011 44
Introduction - IIIIntroduction - III
Some comments: Some comments: Even if the CT beam is generated differently with Even if the CT beam is generated differently with respect to the MTE, a trapping efficiency was defined respect to the MTE, a trapping efficiency was defined as well.as well.Some of the plots will show the evolution with time of Some of the plots will show the evolution with time of the key beam dynamics quantities.the key beam dynamics quantities.Some of the plots will show the correlation between Some of the plots will show the correlation between the beam dynamics quantities. the beam dynamics quantities.
60
70
80
90
100
110
120E
xtra
ctio
n E
ffic
ien
cy [
%]
CNGS_Aug_1_31
2010
-08-
12 0
0:00
:00
2010
-08-
12 2
2:44
:12
2010
-08-
13 2
1:28
:25
2010
-08-
14 2
0:12
:37
2010
-08-
15 1
8:56
:50
2010
-08-
16 1
7:41
:03
2010
-08-
17 1
6:25
:15
2010
-08-
18 1
5:09
:28
2010
-08-
19 1
3:53
:41
2010
-08-
20 1
2:37
:53
2010
-08-
21 1
1:22
:06
2010
-08-
22 1
0:06
:18
2010
-08-
23 0
8:50
:31
2010
-08-
24 0
7:34
:44
2010
-08-
25 0
6:18
:56
2010
-08-
26 0
5:03
:09
2010
-08-
27 0
3:47
:22
2010
-08-
28 0
2:31
:34
2010
-08-
29 0
1:15
:47
2010
-08-
30 0
0:00
:00
F16.BCT372:INTENSITY212_Spill
MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011 55
60
70
80
90
100
110
120E
xtra
ctio
n E
ffic
ien
cy [
%]
CNGS_September_1_30
2010
-09-
04 0
0:00
:00
2010
-09-
05 0
7:34
:44
2010
-09-
06 1
5:09
:28
2010
-09-
07 2
2:44
:12
2010
-09-
09 0
6:18
:56
2010
-09-
10 1
3:53
:41
2010
-09-
11 2
1:28
:25
2010
-09-
13 0
5:03
:09
2010
-09-
14 1
2:37
:53
2010
-09-
15 2
0:12
:37
2010
-09-
17 0
3:47
:22
2010
-09-
18 1
1:22
:06
2010
-09-
19 1
8:56
:50
2010
-09-
21 0
2:31
:34
2010
-09-
22 1
0:06
:18
2010
-09-
23 1
7:41
:03
2010
-09-
25 0
1:15
:47
2010
-09-
26 0
8:50
:31
2010
-09-
27 1
6:25
:15
2010
-09-
29 0
0:00
:00
F16.BCT372:INTENSITYFTS.BCT379:INTENSITY212_Spill
66MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011
Issues with the cross-calibration of the TT2-TT10 BCTs
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ave
rag
e T
rapp
ing
Eff
icie
ncy
85
90
95
100
105
110
115SFTPRO_May_1_18
Ave
rag
e E
xtra
ctio
n E
ffic
ienc
y
2010
-05-
04 1
1:34
:15
2010
-05-
05 0
5:54
:26
2010
-05-
06 0
0:14
:37
2010
-05-
06 1
8:34
:49
2010
-05-
07 1
2:55
:00
2010
-05-
08 0
7:15
:11
2010
-05-
09 0
1:35
:23
2010
-05-
09 1
9:55
:34
2010
-05-
10 1
4:15
:46
2010
-05-
11 0
8:35
:57
2010
-05-
12 0
2:56
:08
2010
-05-
12 2
1:16
:20
2010
-05-
13 1
5:36
:31
2010
-05-
14 0
9:56
:42
2010
-05-
15 0
4:16
:54
2010
-05-
15 2
2:37
:05
2010
-05-
16 1
6:57
:16
2010
-05-
17 1
1:17
:28
2010
-05-
18 0
5:37
:39
2010
-05-
18 2
3:57
:51
Average Extraction Efficiency, =98.23, =1.81Average Trapping Efficiency, =19.08, =1.36
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ave
rag
e T
rapp
ing
Eff
icie
ncy
85
90
95
100
105
110
115MD2_May_1_18
Ave
rag
e E
xtra
ctio
n E
ffic
ienc
y
2010
-05-
03 0
4:58
:21
2010
-05-
03 2
3:39
:28
2010
-05-
04 1
8:20
:36
2010
-05-
05 1
3:01
:43
2010
-05-
06 0
7:42
:51
2010
-05-
07 0
2:23
:58
2010
-05-
07 2
1:05
:06
2010
-05-
08 1
5:46
:13
2010
-05-
09 1
0:27
:21
2010
-05-
10 0
5:08
:28
2010
-05-
10 2
3:49
:36
2010
-05-
11 1
8:30
:43
2010
-05-
12 1
3:11
:51
2010
-05-
13 0
7:52
:58
2010
-05-
14 0
2:34
:06
2010
-05-
14 2
1:15
:13
2010
-05-
15 1
5:56
:21
2010
-05-
16 1
0:37
:28
2010
-05-
17 0
5:18
:36
2010
-05-
17 2
3:59
:43
Average Extraction Efficiency, =97.46, =1.37Average Trapping Efficiency, =17.87, =1.55
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ave
rag
e T
rapp
ing
Eff
icie
ncy
85
90
95
100
105
110
115CNGS_September_1_30
Ave
rag
e E
xtra
ctio
n E
ffic
ienc
y
2010
-09-
04 0
7:52
:33
2010
-09-
05 1
2:46
:39
2010
-09-
06 1
7:40
:45
2010
-09-
07 2
2:34
:51
2010
-09-
09 0
3:28
:57
2010
-09-
10 0
8:23
:04
2010
-09-
11 1
3:17
:10
2010
-09-
12 1
8:11
:16
2010
-09-
13 2
3:05
:22
2010
-09-
15 0
3:59
:28
2010
-09-
16 0
8:53
:34
2010
-09-
17 1
3:47
:41
2010
-09-
18 1
8:41
:47
2010
-09-
19 2
3:35
:53
2010
-09-
21 0
4:29
:59
2010
-09-
22 0
9:24
:05
2010
-09-
23 1
4:18
:12
2010
-09-
24 1
9:12
:18
2010
-09-
26 0
0:06
:24
2010
-09-
27 0
5:00
:30
Average Extraction Efficiency, =92.26, =0.56Average Trapping Efficiency, =20.65, =0.78
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25A
vera
ge
Tra
ppin
g E
ffic
ien
cy
85
90
95
100
105
110
115CNGS_Aug_1_31
Ave
rag
e E
xtra
ctio
n E
ffic
ienc
y
2010
-08-
12 1
3:52
:37
2010
-08-
13 1
1:52
:39
2010
-08-
14 0
9:52
:40
2010
-08-
15 0
7:52
:41
2010
-08-
16 0
5:52
:43
2010
-08-
17 0
3:52
:44
2010
-08-
18 0
1:52
:45
2010
-08-
18 2
3:52
:47
2010
-08-
19 2
1:52
:48
2010
-08-
20 1
9:52
:49
2010
-08-
21 1
7:52
:51
2010
-08-
22 1
5:52
:52
2010
-08-
23 1
3:52
:53
2010
-08-
24 1
1:52
:55
2010
-08-
25 0
9:52
:56
2010
-08-
26 0
7:52
:57
2010
-08-
27 0
5:52
:59
2010
-08-
28 0
3:53
:00
2010
-08-
29 0
1:53
:01
2010
-08-
29 2
3:53
:03
Average Extraction Efficiency, =96.81, =1.01Average Trapping Efficiency, =20.43, =0.60
77
CT beam CT beam
MTE beam MTE beam
85 90 95 100 105 110 1150
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6x 10
4
Average Extraction Efficiency [%]
Nu
mb
er o
f E
vent
sCNGS_Aug_1_31
CNGS August
85 90 95 100 105 110 1150
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cu
mu
lativ
e P
erc
ent
age
[%
]
=
96.
81
+
= 9
7.82
-
= 9
5.80
MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011 88
85 90 95 100 105 110 1150
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
3
3.3
3.6
3.9
4.2
4.5x 10
4
Average Extraction Efficiency [%]
Nu
mb
er o
f E
vent
s
CNGS_September_1_30
CNGS September
85 90 95 100 105 110 1150
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cu
mu
lativ
e P
erc
ent
age
[%
]
=
92.
26
+
= 9
2.81
-
= 9
1.70
85 90 95 100 105 110 1150
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Average Extraction Efficiency [%]
Nu
mb
er o
f E
vent
s
MD2_May_1_18
MD2 May
85 90 95 100 105 110 1150
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cu
mu
lativ
e P
erc
ent
age
[%
]
=
97.
46
+
= 9
8.82
-
= 9
6.09
85 90 95 100 105 110 1150
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Average Extraction Efficiency [%]
Nu
mb
er o
f E
vent
s
SFTPRO_May_1_18
SFTPRO May
85 90 95 100 105 110 1150
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cu
mu
lativ
e P
erc
ent
age
[%
]
=
98.
23
+
= 1
00.0
4
-
= 9
6.42
CT beam CT beam
MTE beam MTE beam
5 10 15 20 250
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3x 10
4
Trapping Efficiency [%]
Nu
mb
er o
f E
vent
s
CNGS_September_1_30
CNGS September
5 10 15 20 250
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cu
mu
lativ
e P
erc
ent
age
[%
]
=
20.
65
+
= 2
1.43
-
= 1
9.87
MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011 99
5 10 15 20 250
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
3
3.3x 10
4
Trapping Efficiency [%]
Nu
mb
er o
f E
vent
sCNGS_Aug_1_31
CNGS August
5 10 15 20 250
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cu
mu
lativ
e P
erc
ent
age
[%
]
=
20.
43
+
= 2
1.0
3
-
= 1
9.8
4
5 10 15 20 250
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
Trapping Efficiency [%]
Nu
mb
er o
f E
vent
s
MD2_May_1_18
MD2 May
5 10 15 20 250
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cu
mu
lativ
e P
erc
ent
age
[%
]
=
17.
87
+
= 1
9.4
1
-
= 1
6.3
2
5 10 15 20 250
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
Trapping Efficiency [%]
Nu
mb
er o
f E
vent
s
SFTPRO_May_1_18
SFTPRO May
5 10 15 20 250
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cu
mu
lativ
e P
erc
ent
age
[%
]
=
19.
08
+
= 2
0.44
-
= 1
7.73
CT beam CT beam
MTE beam MTE beam
1010
CT beam CT beam
MTE beam
MTE beam
1111MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011
CT beam CT beam
MTE beam MTE beam
1212MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011
CT beam CT beam
MTE beam MTE beam
1313MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011
CT beam CT beam
MTE beam
MTE beam
1414MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011 MTE beam
1515MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011
CT beam CT beam
MTE beam
MTE beam
1616MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011
CT beam CT beam
MTE beam MTE beam
1717MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011 MTE beam
1818MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011
CT beam CT beam
MTE beam MTE beam
80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 1000
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Transmission Bin [%]
Fre
que
ncy
SPS Transmissions: ALL Data
Transmission 1: END_FB / AFT_INJ2 [%]Transmission 2: FR_PORCH / END_FB [%]Transmission 3: TRANS / FR_PORCH [%]Transmission 4: RAMP / TRANS [%]Transmission 5: START_FT / RAMP [%]Total: START_FT / AFT_INJ2 [%]
1919MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011
80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 1000
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Transmission Bin [%]
Fre
que
ncy
SPS Transmissions: ALL Data
Transmission 1: END_FB / AFT_INJ2 [%]Transmission 2: FR_PORCH / END_FB [%]Transmission 3: TRANS / FR_PORCH [%]Transmission 4: RAMP / TRANS [%]Transmission 5: START_FT / RAMP [%]Total: START_FT / AFT_INJ2 [%]
80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 1000
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Transmission Bin [%]
Fre
que
ncy
SPS Transmissions: ALL Data
Transmission 1: END_FB / AFT_INJ2 [%]Transmission 2: FR_PORCH / END_FB [%]Transmission 3: TRANS / FR_PORCH [%]Transmission 4: RAMP / TRANS [%]Transmission 5: START_FT / RAMP [%]Total: START_FT / AFT_INJ2 [%]
80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 1000
5
10
15
Transmission Bin [%]
Fre
que
ncy
SPS Transmissions: ALL Data
Transmission 1: END_FB / AFT_INJ2 [%]Transmission 2: FR_PORCH / END_FB [%]Transmission 3: TRANS / FR_PORCH [%]Transmission 4: RAMP / TRANS [%]Transmission 5: START_FT / RAMP [%]Total: START_FT / AFT_INJ2 [%]
CT beamCT beam
MTE beam MTE beam
2020MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011
CT beam
MTE beam
Some conclusions - ISome conclusions - I
Better correlation between two extractions for MTE (both Better correlation between two extractions for MTE (both trapping and duty factor). This is due to the relationship trapping and duty factor). This is due to the relationship between trapping and duty cycle for MTE.between trapping and duty cycle for MTE.
Second extraction always better than first one (trapping) Second extraction always better than first one (trapping) for CT. It is a possible consequence of BFA PPM for CT. It is a possible consequence of BFA PPM capabilities – suggested by capabilities – suggested by YannisYannis).).
Not so good correlation for duty factor of two extraction Not so good correlation for duty factor of two extraction for CT. This implies that the shape of the spill can change for CT. This implies that the shape of the spill can change between two extractions (BFA PPM capabilities?).between two extractions (BFA PPM capabilities?).
This means that the trapping fluctuations are on a longer This means that the trapping fluctuations are on a longer time scale than two consecutive cycles. time scale than two consecutive cycles.
MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011 2121
Some conclusions - IISome conclusions - II
Bad MTE performance (huge fluctuations in injection flat Bad MTE performance (huge fluctuations in injection flat bottom). Badly correlated with trapping (possibly bottom). Badly correlated with trapping (possibly correlated with trajectory fluctuations?)correlated with trajectory fluctuations?)
Some correlation between transmission in SPS and Some correlation between transmission in SPS and trapping/duty factor from flat bottom up to front porch. trapping/duty factor from flat bottom up to front porch. Then rather uncorrelated for MTE.Then rather uncorrelated for MTE.
Global transmission in SPS rather correlated with Global transmission in SPS rather correlated with trapping: mostly dominated by results at front porch.trapping: mostly dominated by results at front porch.
MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011 2222
MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011 2323
Programme of the coming days - IProgramme of the coming days - I
Antoine:Antoine:Cross-check, verification, and generalisation of the code Cross-check, verification, and generalisation of the code written by A. Franchi for the steering with DFAs in TT2. Test written by A. Franchi for the steering with DFAs in TT2. Test in the CCC tomorrow.in the CCC tomorrow.Help with analysis of trajectory stability taken last yearHelp with analysis of trajectory stability taken last yearClean up and generalisation of codes developed by E. Clean up and generalisation of codes developed by E. Benedetto.Benedetto.
Massimo: Massimo: Transfer information from E. Benedetto on the tool to analyse Transfer information from E. Benedetto on the tool to analyse the measurements in TT2-TT10-SPS (optics, dispersion, and the measurements in TT2-TT10-SPS (optics, dispersion, and trajectory stability). Analysis of trajectories data taken last trajectory stability). Analysis of trajectories data taken last year.year.
Antoine+Massimo:Antoine+Massimo:Simulations of closure of the slow bump for MTE.Simulations of closure of the slow bump for MTE.
MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011MG - collaboration meeting 10/03/2011 2424
Programme of the coming days - IProgramme of the coming days - I
Simone:Simone:Continue study of SEH31 jumpingContinue study of SEH31 jumpingStudy closure of MTE slow bumpStudy closure of MTE slow bump
Myriam:Myriam:Complete MTE/CT comparison studiesComplete MTE/CT comparison studiesComplete analysis of data taken with one missing PSB ring Complete analysis of data taken with one missing PSB ring (simulating barrier bucket)(simulating barrier bucket)Complete analysis of stability test of tuning quadrupoles in Complete analysis of stability test of tuning quadrupoles in the PSthe PS