Feedback On Nanosecond Timescales (FONT): Philip Burrows

1

Feedback On Nanosecond Timescales (FONT):

Philip Burrows

Neven Blaskovic, Douglas Bett, Glenn Christian, Michael Davis, Young Im Kim, Colin Perry

John Adams Institute

Oxford University

IP Feedback

2

Outline

• Reminder of CLIC IPFB prototype

• Remarks on L*

• ATF2 IP FB concept

• Results of recent beam runs

3

IP beam feedback concept

Last line of defence against relative beam misalignment

Measure vertical position of outgoing beam and hence beam-beam kick angle

Use fast amplifier and kicker to correct vertical position of beam incoming to IR

FONT – Feedback On Nanosecond Timescales

CLIC Final Doublet Region

4

CLIC Final Doublet Region

5

CLIC Final Doublet Region

6

7

Comments on L*

• Current geometry:

time of flight IP BPM kicker IP ~ 24 ns

• Demonstrated FONT3 electronics latency = 13ns

• Estimated IPFB latency = 37ns

8

CLIC IP FB performance

Single random seed of GM C

Resta Lopez

9

For noisy sites:

CLIC IP FB performance

factor 2 - 3 improvement

10

Comments on L*

• Current CDR geometry:

time of flight IP BPM kicker IP ~ 24 ns

• Demonstrated FONT3 electronics latency = 13ns

• Estimated IPFB latency = 37ns

• In principle, change of L* need not affect IPFB position and latency, but needs to be engineered carefully, considering other beamline components

CLIC Final Doublet Region

11

FONT5 installation at ATF2

ATF2 extraction line

1212

13

IP kicker IPBPMs

FONT digital

FB

IPBPMelectronics

FONTamplifier

e-

ATF2 IP FB loop scheme

Eventual goal is to stabilise the small ATF2 beam (design 37nm)at the nanometer level

14

Nanometer beam FB at ATF2 IP

• Much harder than IPFB at ILC or CLIC!

• Only 1 beam must measure beam position directly

• nm-level stabilisation requires nm-level position meas.

Cavity BPMs (rather than striplines)

• Cavities intrinsically slow, signal processing complicated

• Cavities required to resolve 2 bunches within << 300ns

Low-Q cavities and low-latency signal processing

New BPMs+electronics (KNU), new IP chamber (LAL)

15

Layout with new IP kicker

Designed by Oxford

Fabricationarrangedby KEK

16

IP kicker IPBPMs

FONT digital

FB

IPBPMelectronics

FONTamplifier

e-

Preparatory tests June 2013

Existing IPBPMs

Honda low-latency electronics

17

Preparatory test setup

A B

Preparatory test IPFB loop

Analogue Front-end

BPM processor

FPGA-based digital processor

Kicker drive amplifier

Strip-line kicker

Beam

Cavity BPM

18

IP Feedback Results

FB Off Jitter: 170 ± 10 nmFB On Jitter: 93 ± 4 nm

FB Off Correlation: 81%

19

IP Feedback Results

FB Off Jitter: 170 ± 10 nmFB On Jitter: 93 ± 4 nm

FB Off Correlation: 81%

FB On Correlation: -16%20

Incoming Beam Position Scan

10 μm pos. scan

Bunch 2

22

IP BPM resolution

• Beam size during measurements ~ 100 nm

• Model beam jitter ~ 20% of beam size, i.e. 20nm

• Assuming results are resolution limited …

• Resolution = 93 nm / sqrt(2) ~ 65 nm

(no direct resolution measurement possible)

23

New IP chamber installed summer 2013

Commissioning Started November:alignment, BPM signals

11cm Low-Q IP-BPM design

11cm Low-Q IP-BPM drawings of HFSS

100mm

100mm

Sensor cavity

Wave guideAntenna

Designed frequencyX-port: 5.712 GHzY-port: 6.426 GHz

Full size : 11cmx11cm (to

install IP-Chamber)Light weight:

1 kg (Single cavity)2 kg (Double cavity)

25

In May tests resumed w. Honda electronics

FF quad current scan to set vertical beam waist at IPB

26

In May tests resumed w. Honda electronics

Centre beam in BPM using mover optimise resolution

27

In May tests resumed w. Honda electronics

Centre beam in BPM using mover optimise resolution

28

Summary

• ATF2 IPFB prototype is progressing

• Beam stabilised (June 2013) to ~ 100nm level

• Beam jitters measured (June 2014) ~ 60nm (best)

• Beam studies continue until June 20th

• Attempting to disentangle jitter/resolution

• Looking at boosting signal levels resolution

• Hope to close FB loop with improved resolution