| Paper | Title | Page |
|---|---|---|
| MOPPR060 | Calibration of the EMMA Beam Position Monitors: Position, Charge and Accuracy | 921 |
|
||
| The accurate determination of transverse beam position is essential to understanding the performance of an accelerator system, and this is particularly the case with non-scaling FFAG machines such as EMMA, where, due to fundamental principles of design, the beam may deviate widely from the central beampipe axis. This paper describes the various modelling approaches taken for the three different button pickup assemblies used in EMMA, and the subsequent methods of calibration (‘mappings’) which allow beam position and charge to be deduced from the processed BPM signals. The use and validity of the modelling and mapping approach adopted is described, and the contributions to positional and bunch charge uncertainty arising from these procedures is discussed. | ||
| MOPPR061 | Computing Bunch Charge, Position, and BPM Resolution in Turn-by-Turn EMMA BPMs | 924 |
|
||
|
The NS-FFAG electron model ‘EMMA’ and its Injection and Extraction Lines are equipped with a total of 53 EPICS VME BPMs*. In the BPMs, each opposite button signal pair is time-domain-multiplexed into one channel as a pulse doublet. The recording of turn-by-turn data into the BPM memory is triggered by the bunch itself on each of its passages. For each accelerating cycle, the BPMs deliver a snapshot of a turn-by-turn trajectory measured in each of 42 cells. Additional BPMs (two pairs) are used to obtain a Poincare map. We describe the EPICS architecture, and a set of Python data processing algorithms that are used to automatically set a BPM intensity range, to eliminate an error due to tails of the doublet pulses, to calculate the bunch charge and position, and, for a set of injections, to find the BPM resolution. We use three types of button pickup mappings** that allow: to eliminate bunch charge signal dependence on offset, to get a linear offset response, and to eliminate ‘quadrupole’ signal dependence on offset as well (which is used in resolution calculation). We present beam measurement results collected in 2011 runs.
* A. Kalinin et al., Proc. of IPAC’10, MOPE068, p. 1134, (2010. ** I. Kirkman, these proceedings. |
||