Revision as of 15:13, 29 November 2021 by Bruker
- Harp axis calibration does not matter: It only changes the measured emittance but not alpha/beta, and its effect does not depend on the quad in use.
- Adding reasonable quadrupole moments to correctors is not enough to explain the inconsistency. It would need an extra quad with K1 ~ 5.
- At dp/p = 1e-3 (which is higher than what we observe unless the measurement is flawed), seeing significant inconsistencies in the quad scans needs a dispersion of many cm. In y, the only dispersion in this part of the lattice should come from the earth's field; this gives about 8 mm at the harp, much too low to see anything.
For future study
- Provided the BPMs work at all, we can use the 701 and 702 BPMs to better measure the momentum jitter. The CW waveforms give time-domain data in 900-microsecond-long windows with 16384 samples each, i.e., ~ 18 kHz sampling rate, 9 kHz analog bandwidth. More than enough to see all peaks, maybe even a little much to resolve them well. The only problem is, we can only run 100 nanoamps CW into that line. See if that's enough to see anything.
- Current picture of ITVM703 to make sure width/height is still what it was
- UED s coordinate of MDLM601
- 703 harp file, e.g., /cs/data/harpData/IHAM703/IHAM703.10262021_18:....
- using 703 harp, measure momentum spread vs. something interesting, e.g., buncher amplitude
- Ascertain harp data calibration without factor sqrt(2). How to test this?
- Survey 700 line with tape measure