Thoughts on why G0 needed position feedback and HAPPEX didn't

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Source Outlook High polarization strained-layer photocathodes were activated in both electron guns during the summer shutdown, with usual QE (0.2% at 850.
Advertisements

CEBAF Photoinjector: What’s new, what’s the same since HAPPEx 2004? What needs to be done? M. Poelker, HAPPEx collaboration meeting, Feb. 18, 2005.
Parity Quality Beam (PQB) April 07, Notes: 1.For each BPM, the wires are: +X+, +X-, +Y+, +Y- 2.There are only two injector BPMs we are not reading:
R. Michaels PVDIS at Nov 2009 Beam Requirements for PVDIS Property ValueRun-Avg Hel. Correl. 1-Day Hel. Correl. Energy 6 and 4.8 GeVdE/E < 1 ppm < 5 ppm.
K. Moffeit 6 Jan 2005 WORKSHOP Machine-Detector Interface at the International Linear Collider SLAC January 6-8, 2005 Polarimetry at the ILC Design issues.
PN12 Workshop JLab, Nov 2004 R. Michaels Jefferson Lab Parity Violating Neutron Densities Z of Weak Interaction : Clean Probe Couples Mainly to Neutrons.
Electronic Cross-talk & Ground Loop Elimination in Injector Riad Suleiman Center for Injectors and Sources.
PQB Photocathode Analyzing Power Study May 19, 2009.
JLab Polarized Source Happex Collaboration Meeting May 18, 2007 P. Adderley, J. Brittian, J. Clark, J. Grames, J. Hansknecht, M. Poelker, M. Stutzman,
PAVI ’06 Milos May 20, 2006 Kent Paschke – University of Massachusetts Controlling Helicity-Correlated Asymmetries in a Polarized Electron Beam Kent Paschke.
Polarized Source Development Run Results Riad Suleiman Injector Group November 18, 2008.
Parity Quality Beam (PQB) Study Injector Group November 10, 2008.
Hall A Parity Workshop (May 10, 2002), 1 Operated by the Southeastern Universities Research Association for the U.S. Depart. Of Energy Thomas Jefferson.
Collimator June 1-19, 2015HUGS The collimator is placed about 85 cm from the target and intercepts scattered electrons from 0.78° to 3.8° Water cooled.
Magnet Target Detectors Beam (Phase I) (Phase II) The G 0 experiment : Doug Beck Spokesperson. Collaboration : Caltech, Carnegie-Mellon, W&M, Hampton,
Short Tutorial on Causes of Position Differences… …and what we can do about them (most slides stolen from Cates PAVI ’04 talk)
Fast Helicity Reversal Riad Suleiman Injector Group June 2, 2009.
May 17, 2006Sebastian Baunack, PAVI06 The Parity Violation A4 Experiment at forward and backward angles Strange Form Factors The Mainz A4 Experiment Result.
1 G9a -FROST. 2 Experiments FROST New generation of CLAS photoproduction experiments with FROzen Spin Polarized Target (FROST) E02-112: γp→KY (K + Λ,
Backgrounds for HAPPEx Ryan Snyder April 7, 2006.
Kiyoshi Kubo Electron beam in undulators of e+ source - Emittance and orbit angle with quad misalignment and corrections - Effect of beam pipe.
G 0 PC Installation and Beam Studies Stephanie Bailey Riad Suleiman.
Source Systematics PITA - type effects The importance of controlling the analyzer-axis –Two Pockels cells –Half-wave plate Position asymmetries –Lensing.
Beam Optics for Parity Experiments Mark Pitt Virginia Tech (DHB) Electron beam optics in the injector, accelerator, and transport lines to the experimental.
Injector Status & Commissioning QWeak Collaboration Meeting May 24, 2010 P. Adderley, J. Clark, S. Covert, J. Grames, J. Hansknecht, M. Poelker, M. Stutzman,
Parity Experiments and JLab Injector Riad Suleiman February 5, 2016.
G 0 Project Coordinator Report Joe Grames “Big Picture” Schedule Preparations Polarized Source Injector Accelerator Hall C Accelerator Plans for 687 MeV.
Operated by Jefferson Science Associates, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Polarized Electron Beams.
Parity Quality Beam (PQB) B-Team Meeting September 10, 2008.
Polarized Injector & Upgrade Schedule QWeak Collaboration Meeting November 06, 2009 P. Adderley, J. Clark, J. Grames, J. Hansknecht, M. Poelker, M. Stutzman,
Polarized Injector Update
Parity Violation Experiments & Beam Requirements
Spin Precession At CEBAF
Test of Hybrid Target at KEKB LINAC
Joe Grames Center for Injectors and Sources
Status of the CLIC main beam injectors
Time-Reversed Particle Simulations In GPT (or “There And Back Again”)
Jefferson Lab, Newport News, U.S.A.
A Mini-Primer for Parity Quality Beam (as seen from the Accelerator)
Elastic Scattering in Electromagnetism
G0 Backward Angle Accelerator Preparations

G0 Accelerator Planning Meeting (11/1/05)
Parity Violation Experiments at JLEIC
Parity Quality Beam (PQB)
Accelerator Issues Raised in Hall A Parity Collaboration Meeting, April B-Team Meeting April 29, 2009.
Thoughts on why G0 needed position feedback and HAPPEX didn't
Capture and Transmission of polarized positrons from a Compton Scheme
G0 PC Installation and Beam Studies
G0 PC Installation and Beam Studies
Qweak Coordination Meeting
Polarized Source Development Run Results
Photons centered on collimator
Adiabatic Damping and Parity Quality of Low Energy
Feedback Systems Joe Grames Hall A Parity Meeting Jefferson Lab
Injector Studies Using Superlattice Photocathode
Helicity Magnets for PQB Feedback Helicity Magnets for PZT Booster
Beam Loading  Total kick ~ 1.53nm/ppm
PQB Meeting March 05, 2009.
Injector Setup for G0 and HAPPEX & Lessons Learned
Beam Position Noise from 500 keV MBO0I06 Dipole Sensor
G0 PC Installation and Beam Studies
Beam Halo Considerations for Back Angle Running
B-Team Meeting October 28, 2009
Spot-Size Reduction 4/5/2017.
Experiment Energy (GeV) Pol (%) I (µA) Target Apv (ppb) Charge Asym
Injector Commissioning & Optimization
Comparison between 4K and 2K operation performance of CEBAF injector cryomodules Grigory Eremeev Monday, August 19, 2019.
HALLA APEL REPORT Yves Roblin Hall A colllaboration Meeting
Hall A Beam Parameters Table
Presentation transcript:

Thoughts on why G0 needed position feedback and HAPPEX didn't The practical reason why G0 needed position feedback and HAPPEX didn't is simple: Values of HAPPEX position differences (with no feedback) were typically < 20 nm (see figures in following slides) For G0, typical position differences (before feedback turned on) were ~ 100 - 200 nm so clearly G0 needed position feedback to get down to the desired < 20 nm level. Why the difference in "no-feedback" values (as observed in experimental halls)? 1. Did HAPPEX have smaller "analyzing power" than G0 for their crystal? (probably unlikely) 2. Did HAPPEX choice of Pockels cell and alignment procedures lead to smaller gradient induced position differences? (one way to compare would be to look at a RHWP scan at the first 100 keV BPM for HAPPEX and G0 and see if the amplitude of the position difference curves differs, assuming comparable intensity asymmetry amplitudes) 3. Did HAPPEX's choice of RHWP and PITA settings lead to a better "simultaneous" null of intensity and positions coming off the crystal? (to check one would need to compare typical position differences between HAPPEX and G0 at the first injector BPM at 100 keV; if such data exists). 4. Did HAPPEx have better typical "adiabatic damping" than G0 did? (some data exists on it but it might be comparing apples and oranges; see following slides)

Helicity-Correlated Beam Properties: Experience during HAPPEx Helium

Helicity-Correlated Beam Properties: Experience during HAPPEx Hydrogen

HAPPEX adiabatic damping results from Ryan Snyder 1=BPM0I05 2=BPM0L01 3=BPM0L02 4=BPM0L03 5= BPM0L04 BPM4A and BPM4B are in Hall A

HAPPEX adiabatic damping results from Ryan Snyder 1=BPM0I05 2=BPM0L01 3=BPM0L02 4=BPM0L03 5= BPM0L04 BPM4A and BPM4B are in Hall A

G0 results on "adiabatic damping" from PZT scans 100 keV 5 MeV 3 GeV Total observed damping from 100 keV to 3 GeV: x ~ 24, y~ 10 Most of damping comes from 5 MeV  3 GeV region

Recall: Beam Specs./Observed values for G0 Forward Angle Run Beam specifications table for G0 forward angle run: Beam Property Nominal value Maximum deviation from nominal (DC) Maximum noise at the helicity reversal frequency Maximum noise at all other frequencies Maximum allowed run-averaged helicity-corrrelation Energy(average) 3.0 GeV  0.01 % 0.001% (35 at 35mm/%) 0.01% (350  at 35 mm/% <2.5 x 10-8 88 nm at 35 mm/% Energy spread (1) E/E < 5 x 10-5 CW average current 40 A  5.0 % 0.2% 1.0% < 1 ppm Position at G0 target “0”  0.2 mm 20  0.2 mm < 20 nm Angle at G0 target  0.050 mr 2 r 0.02 mr < 2 nr Angular divergence at G0 target x’ ,y < 100 r  50% rms size (unrastered) at G0 target < 200   25% < 2  Polarization > 70% Beam halo at G0 target < 1 x 10-6 outside of a 3 mm radius < 0.1% of nominal halo tolerance Observed values during G0 forward angle run: Beam Parameter Achieved “Specs” Charge asymmetry -0.14 ± 0.32 ppm 1 ppm x position differences 3 ± 4 nm 20 nm y position differences 4 ± 4 nm x angle differences 1 ± 1 nrad 2 nrad y angle differences 1.5 ± 1 nrad Energy differences 29 ± 4 eV 75 eV

G0 results on "adiabatic damping" from RHWP scan There appears to be no damping at all in the position differences induced by the RHWP (rotating halfwave plate).

Position differences in hall correlated with charge asymmetries The position differences in the hall seem to be correlated with the charge asymmetry, independent of how the charge asymmetry is generated.

Correlation between Hall C position differences and Hall A charge asymmetry (Hall A ~ 100  A, Hall C ~ 20 A) A similar correlation is seen with the Hall A beam, which occurs at least 2 nsec different in time than the Hall C beam.