Post on 15-Jan-2016
description
transcript
TIPP ‘ 14International Conference on Technology and
Instrumentation in Particle Physics
Measurement of nm Electron Beam Sizes using Laser Interference by Shintake Monitor
2-6 June 2014 Amsterdam, The Netherlands
TIPP14
Jacqueline Yan, S. Komamiya, ( Univ. of Tokyo, Graduate School of Science )Y. Kamiya ( Univ. of Tokyo, ICEPP )
T.Okugi, T.Terunuma, T.Tauchi, K.Kubo (KEK)
1
ATF2 : test prototype of final focus system for ILC
Role of Shintake Monitor at ATF2Role of Shintake Monitor at ATF2
ATF2 Goal 1: verify Local Chromaticity Correction scheme by focusing σy to design 37 nm Goal 2: O(nm) beam position stabilization
FFS
High luminosity requires O(nm) vertical beam size at IP
ATF : 1.3 GeV LINAC , DR wextremely small vertical e beam emittance
Outline of this talkOutline of this talk
Recent Beam Recent Beam Time Status Time Status
Performance Performance EvaluationEvaluation Summary Summary
& Goals& GoalsIntroductionIntroduction
Signal Signal JittersJitters
• Systematic errors Systematic errors • Phase jitter studyPhase jitter study
Shintake Monitor is crucial for achieving ATF2 ‘s Goal 1 and demonstrating feasibility of realizing ILC !!
TIPP14 2
Introduction
Measurement SchemeMeasurement SchemeExpected PerformanceExpected PerformanceRole in Beam TuningRole in Beam Tuning
TIPP14 3
Compton scattered photons detected downstream
Collision of e- beamwith laser fringe
upper, lower laser paths cross at IP
form Interference fringes
Piezo
• use laser interference fringes as target for e- beamOnly device able to measure σy < 100 nm !!• essential for ATF2 beam tuning
Measurement SchemeMeasurement Scheme
TIPP14
e- beam safely
dumped
Split into upper/lower paths phase scan by piezo stage
4
Nd:YAG pulsed laser (Pro-350) λ = 532 nm (SHG)
Y. Yamaguchi , Master Thesis, Univ of Tokyo
N +
N -
[rad]
[rad]
N: no. of Compton photonsConvolution between e- beam profile and fringe intensity
Focused Beam : large M
Dilluted Beam : small M
Small σy
Large σy
5
Detector measures signal Modulation Depth “M” measurable range
determined by fringe pitch
depend on crossing angle θ (and λ )
)2/sin(2
ykd
M
d
kNN
NN
y
yy
)cos(ln2
2
)(2exp)cos( 2
M
TIPP14 5
Crossing angle θ
174° 30° 8° 2°
Fringe pitch 266 nm 1.03 μm 3.81 μm 15.2 μm
Lower limit 25 nm 80 nm 350 nm 1.2 μm
Upper limit 110 nm 400 nm 1.4 μm 6 μm
)2/sin(2
ykd
M
dy
)cos(ln2
2
Measures σy* = 25 nm 〜 6 μm with < 10% resolution
Expected PerformanceExpected Performance
select appropriate mode according to beam focusing
TIPP14
σσyy and M and M for each θ modefor each θ mode
6Y. Yamaguchi , Master Thesis, Univ of Tokyo
174 deg. 30 deg.
2 - 8 deg
Crossing angle continuously adjustable by prism TIPP14 7
Vertical table Vertical table 1.7 (H) x 1.6 (V) m
• InterferometerInterferometer• Phase control (piezo stage) Phase control (piezo stage)
path for each θ mode ( auto-stages + mirror actuators
)
beam pipe
Laser transported to IP
optical delay
half mirror
Recent Beam Time Status Recent Beam Time Status
TIPP14 8
Mar, 2013 : M 〜 0.3 @174° σy,meas 〜 65 nm
〜 〜 20132013
Apr – May, 2014Apr – May, 2014
reduction in signal jitters/ drifts by various hardware improvements laser tuning, detector , collimation
〜 〜 Mar 2014Mar 2014
• effective linear / nonlinear knob tuning • reflect improved e- beam stabilizationConsistent measurement of high M @ 174°
mid-Apr: Mmeas > 0.4 (σymeas < 57 nm)
TIPP14
HIGHLIGHTS of PERFORMANCE• stable contribution to e- beam tuning• Best measurement stability 〜 5%• small σy requires very low beam intensity due to wake-field effects (investigating)
• Actual σy may be smaller after correcting for systematic errors (dedicated studies ongoing)
4/17/2014 9
Fringe scans @174°
For status of even smaller σmeas in 2014 see “K. Kubo et al: IPAC14 Proceedings :TOWARDS INTERNATIONAL LINEAR COLLIDER: EXPERIMENTS AT ATF2 “
9
( Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 034802)
Focus of this talk
Preliminary before error corrections
M =0.34 +/-0.02 (S/D. ) (σy = 62 +/- 2 nm (S.D) )
TIPP14
Examples of consistency scans @174 ° in 2014 before knob tuning M = 0.29 +/- 0.04 ( S.D. ) ( σy = 66 +/- 4 nm (S.D)
~ 14 hrs later after all linear/nonlinear knobs M =0.34 +/-0.02 (S/D. ) (σy = 62 +/- 2 nm (S.D) )
higher M and better stability
Results before error correction
M > 0.4 reproduced at beam tuning knobs
EFFECTIVE beam tuning :
σy > 150 nm σy < 60 nm within half a day !!
PreliminaryPreliminary
Beam tuning using sextupoles
10
Status
Laser pointing jitters(H relative position jitter “ Δx”)
• observed by profile monitor & laser wire mode : 〜 5-10% of laser profile radius
Phase jitter Δφ Vertical laser-beam relative position jitter “Δy”
Estimated by fitting of jitters in fringe scansStill need independent measurement of either laser or beam jitter
Laser power jitter < 10%
Timing jitter 1 – 3 ns peak to peak, add < few % to signal jitters
statistical fluctuations Depend on photon statistics : detector properties, collimation, beam intensity, etc….
Other minor factors
• BG fluctuation, • e- beam current monitor resolution
< 5 % each, BG is not a issue recently with high S/N
Varies with beam condition
Potential Sources of Signal Jitters
• observe overall sig jitter in fringe scan 〜 20-40% depend on phase• drifts are hard to separate from jitters sometimes
Also a M reduction factor
TIPP14 11
From PIN-PD signal
Further measurements and simulations ongoing to comprehend impact from each source
issue of “oscillating” Compton signal jitters (period 〜 few min) pointing jitters related to complex internal structure of laser profile@ IP eg. non-Gaussian multi- components
TIPP14
30 deg174 deg
ATF2 online panel : signal stability trend
(1) reinforcement of detector shielding (Pb and parafine)
(2)Stabilization of e- beam improved tuning multiknobs, orbit feedback(3) speed up DAQ software : reduced effect from drifts (4) Adjust laser profile and focusing Reduce pointing jitter at IP(5) improved buildup and Q-switch timing stability
5/29 (174 deg )
focal lens scan
-----Broad Rayleigh length > 〜 4 mm
by Shintake Monitor group@ATF2
Relaxed laser focusing
Hardware improvements to stabilize measurements in 2014
Before After : Rounder profile less intensity bias
12
Regular laser tuning by laser company engineer
TIPP14
Focusing on the most dominant “phase Jitter”
study of systematic errors
(M reduction factors)
13
[[[References: 1. J. Yan, et.al., Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A740 (2014) 131-1372. ATF2 collaboration: Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 0348023. Proceedings for this conference
Error source M reduction factor
phase jitter(V relative position jitter )
study using simulation and analyze actual data
Fringe tilt (z, t) Optimization by “tilt scan”
Laser polarization polarization measured optimize by “ λ / 2 plate scan ”
MisalignmentLaser profile
shot-by-shot fluctuation and non-Gaussian components of laser profile may lead to 10-20% in M reduction
TIPP14
Details coming up
Systematic errors : M reduction Factor
σy over - evaluation
M under-evaluation
Suppression of signal jitters / drifts helps precise evaluation of M reduction factors
dominant
14
study of other more complex non-linear, non-Gaussian jitters/ slow drifts are ongoing
Before: fitted M After correction
Phase jitter (Δφ)Phase jitter (Δφ)relative position jitter (Δy) between laser relative position jitter (Δy) between laser and e- beamand e- beam
• Hard to decouple laser fringe phase jitter from e- beam jitters
• conditions change over time
(ex)(ex) : : ifif Δφ = 400 mrad, Δφ = 400 mrad, CΔφ CΔφ 〜 〜 91 % 91 % σσy0y0 = 40 nm = 40 nm σ σy,meas y,meas = 44 nm= 44 nm
M reduction factor due to Δφ M reduction factor due to Δφ
M reduction from Δφ
Δφ [rad]
Horizontal jitters
Small σy* especially sensitive to beam jitter !!
Δφ extraction method was developed !!by fitting fringe scan data
TIPP14 can correct M almost back to nominal using extracted Δφ
simulation
Δφ [rad]
simulationM0 = 0.636σy0 = 40 nm
Mcorr = Mmeas / CΔφ
simulation
15
GOAL
Focusing on factors hard to suppress
• phase jitter Δφ DOMINANT extracted from fringe scan (details coming up)• alignment (position, profile)
Important to guarantee reliability of Δφ extraction method
Demonstrated using simulation : Δφ precision better than few % in general
analysis model assumes Gaussian jitter distribution however reality may be more complex …..• confirmed by testing variety of non-Gaussian (non-linear) jitters / drifts what effects do they have on “Mmeas “ and “Δφ_out “ ? ( details coming up)
Dedicated beam time data for Δφ study was analyzed
Recent status : 〜 10 nm systematic over-evaluation of σy (preliminary )
Potential Causes for phase jitter Laser pointing instability combined with mirror misalignment / vibrations electron beam jitter (ΔΦ is a convolution of laser and e beam)
TIPP14
16
Study of Systematic Modulation ReductionStudy of Systematic Modulation Reduction
Simulation study of Δφ extraction precision
fix {M,φ0, Eavg, Cconst, Cstat} to jitter plot
signal jitter vs phase
STEP1: generate fringe scan assume “realistic” ATF2 conditions
fringe scan
Jitter from Δφ
Model
TIPP14
Signal energy vs phase
vertical jitter input
input: σy0 = 40 nm, 174°mode Δφ = 0.7 mrad , 24.5 % vertical jitter
simulation
simulation
Random Δφ input
Δφ , Clinear (2 free parameters) fixed parameters: M, φ0, Eavg , Cconst, Cstat: (estimated)
STEP2: extract Δφ from fitting
Sig jitter = convolution of phase jitter and vertical jitter
BG statistical laser
spread is larger for smaller Nav
Nav = 20 vs Nav = 50
Simulation
[2] Distribution for random 10 samples•X: seed number • Y: extracted Δφ
• error < 〜 7% for single scan good to average over multiple scans
large Nav scans are preferred for Δφ study
Assume a “relaistic” ATF2 conditionInput: M0 = 0.64, σy0 = 40 nm, 174 deg mode, Nav=50, Clinear = 0.25,Cstat = 0.15, Cconst = 0.05, Δφ = 0. 59 rad
Simulation
[1] statistical results of 100 random seeds • X: input ΔΦ• Y: extracted Δφ
TIPP14 18
Extraction precision for Gaussian distributed phase jitter input
Simulation for effect of
non-linear jitters/ drifts on measured Modulation and phase jitter analysis
Using imitation of actually measured laser fringe phase jitters
Input: M0 = 0.64, σy0 = 40 nm, 174 deg Clinear = 0.25, Cconst = 0.05, Cstat = 0.15
TIPP14 19
TIPP14
Mean : 1.77 +/- 0.035
Δφ_real RMS = 0.448 rad
data read out in 3 Hz (0.33 sec) intervals
Test using reproduced Δφ measured using phase monitor in 2009 (beam off , old laser system)
1. Input “Δφ_real” into fringe scan simulation 2. extract Mmeas and Δφ_out 3. observe effect on Mmeas & M correction using
Δφ_out
20
phase monitor no longer installed
Extracted results: •Δφ_out = 0.43 +/- 0.04 (rms) 10 random seeds close to Δφ_real RMS
also added “slow linear drift “• OK if drift < 150 mrad/ min (similar to real drift)
Nav=50
shot-by-shotΔΦ extraction precision better than 5%
Effect of phase instability on MMmeas vs Mcorr = Mmeas / exp(-ΔΦ_out ^2 /2)
Observationswhen averaged over multiple scans, Mmeas is not far off from nominal (few % error)
• poor Δφ_out precision for small Nav
For large Nav (> 50) :• relatively good ΔΦ_out precision• correct almost back to nominal M0 (< 〜 1% error )
Compare different Nav (# of pulses/phase) =10, 20, 50, 100
avg and rms of 10 random seeds
TIPP14 21
Why large Nav is better for Δφ extraction ?• higher statistics• effect of drifts resemble faster Gaussian like jitters suitable for the model used here
impact from nonlinear fluctuations depends on ….. rate of jitters/ drifts location, statistics (Nav) of fringe scan very difficult to model ; detailed study of all different scenarios is ongoing
Need to balance precision issues with time consumption
TIPP14
Analysis of phase jitters from real beam time data
22
History of phase jitter extracted from fringe scans in 2014
Mar 2014
Jan – Feb, 2014
TIPP14
Apr, 2014, 30 deg
Apr-May 2014
Large difference in Δφ between 30 deg (300-600 mrad) and 174 deg (600-850 mrad)
maybe due to :•effect of laser pointing jitter : longer path length after 50% beamsplitter for 174 °•impact from e- beam jitter (ΔΦ = 2*π*Δy /d d (174)= 266 nm vs d(30) = 1028 nm )
174 ° : σy, meas < 65 nm
-- 2-8° , 30 ° : larger σy --
RECENT
phase jitter Δφ relative position jitter Δy Convolution of laser and e beam : difficult to separate at present
23
Phase Jitter @ 174 °mode derived using dedicated Nav=50 fringe scans
Recent Phase Jitters @ 174°mode are similar •4/9: Δφ=0.82 +/- 0.10 rad•4/10 : Δφ=0.85 +/- 0.06 rad•4/17 : Δφ=0.67 +/- 0.04 rad•5/22 : Δφ=0.74 +/- 0.04 rad
example: 4/17 Δφ=0.67 +/- 0.04 rad
M plot
RMS jitter plot for Δφ analysis Fai
TIPP14 24
ΔΦ (=2*π*Δy/d) very different between 30° and 174 ° however Δy / σymeas is similar (50-60%)
Indicate significance of e beam jitter (?)
Difficult to separate laser and beam factors
anticipating independent measurement of e- beam jitter @ IP by O(nm) resolution cavity BPMs (commissioning)
laser interferometer type Shintake Monitor Only existing device capable of measuring beam sizes < 100 nm essential for achieving ATF2 goal(s) realizing ILC
SummarySummary
< Status > stable beam tuning and continuous beam size measurements in Apr-May, 2014
measurement stability 〜 5% 5% reflects e- beam stabilization and reduction of signal jitters /drifts by KEK membersreduction of signal jitters /drifts by KEK members
GoalsGoals identify and suppress sources of jitters / drifts
stable measurement of σy < 40 nm and improve error analysis precision
achieve ATF2 Goal 1 !!!
For status of small σmeas , see“K. Kubo et al: IPAC14 Proceedings : TOWARDS INTERNATIONAL LINEAR COLLIDER: EXPERIMENTS AT ATF2 “
dedicated study of systematic errors of Shintake Monitor dedicated study of systematic errors of Shintake Monitor data analysis & data analysis & simulation
after correction for the dominant M reduction factor phase jitter : maybe REAL σy is 〜 10 nm smaller Close to achieving ATF Goal 1 !!!
TIPP14 25
BACKUP SLIDES
TIPP14 26
power jitter < ~ 10%
Timing jitter : 1-3 ns peak to peak
Timing and Power Stability
Observe signal of PIN-Photodiode @laser hut
Laser Power and Profile Measurements (Apr, 2014)
Parallel propagation to final focal lenses
balanced profiles and power (~ 95%) between U and L paths
loss in transport (laser hut IP) < 7%
laser table• round profile•intensity spots evened out
after transport to IPTIPP14 27
174 deg Mmeas(174)0.29 +/-0.01 σmeas = 66+/- 1 nm
Ctot(174) > 0.66
Mcorr 0.44 +/-0.02
30 deg Mmeas(30) 0.77+/-0.01 σmeas = 81+/- 2 nm
Mexp 0.82+/-0.01
Ctot,exp 0.93+/-0.01
---------------- ----------------
Ctot(30) >0.94
using data immediately before / after mode switching (174 30°)
• this study requires stable beam time conditions (laser & beam)
• total M reduction for 30 °is less than 2013 due to hardware upgrades (?)
total M reduction for 30°compared to 174 °results
“ Ctot,exp” and “Ctot(30)” consistent , almost no residual M reduction ??!!
Total M red, mainly from Δφ
M red. derived independently using 30° data only, mainly from Δφ
Dedicated study of “fringe Contrast” = total M reduction factor “ Ctot”
TIPP14
σcorr = 54+/- 1 nm
28
Laser pointing stability : 4/9 from Nav = 50 laserwire scan @174 deg
Δx / (laser spot radius) = 12 +/- 7 %
TIPP14
Contribution from σx subtracted
Assuming Gaussian laserwire profile (but not always so)
ICT: 2E9
signal jitter status : improved since April 2014 stability varies for different periods, efforts for further stabilization still ongoing
174 deg, Apr vs Mar 2014
Drift of Fitted Initial Phase in 174 deg continuous scans ( 〜 30 min)
this drift is convolution may be from laser and/or beam
Relative RMS jitter ΔE/E(φ)
29
Examples of SIMULATIONDepending on condition, signal jitters/drifts can cause both under & over evaluation of M
30
Fitted M
Typical range
Bias on M from Static Gaussian like vertical jitters
a few % systematic M reduction
Input : Nav=50, 174 deg , M0 = 0.636, Δφ=0, change 1 C factor at a time, keep others 0
Simulation: Avg of 100 seeds
difficult to model
nonlinear fluctuation:sudden intensity decrease(drift)
In this case, M over-evaluation
ex) 50% reduction
Nav=20, Clinear = 0.25,Cstat = 0.10, Cconst = 0.05, Δφ = 0. 59 rad
simulation
simulation
rel. M error = (Mfit – Mexp) / Mexp
TIPP14
transverse : laser wire scan
precise position alignment by remote control
TIPP14
Role of IPBSM in Beam TuningRole of IPBSM in Beam Tuning
31
beforehand …. Construct & confirm laser paths, timing alignment
Longitudinal : z scan
After all preparations ……….
continuously measure σy using fringe scans Feed back to multi-knob tuning
laser spot size σt,laser = 15 – 20 μm
almost no M reduction due to polarization
Polarization MeasurementPolarization Measurement
P contamination : Pp/Ps < 1.5 %
Set-up
IPBSM optics designed for linear S polarization
Also measured “half mirror” reflective properties
Rs = 50.3 %, Rp = 20.1 % match catalogue value
half mirror
power ratio
confirmed “S peaks” maximize M
Beamtime : “ λ/2 plate scan
S peaks” also yields best power balance between 2 paths !!
TIPP14
#2
Rotate λ/2 plate angle [deg]
32
TIPP14
actual data (blue)Nav = 20 fringe scan(Mar 11 2014) @ 174 deg mode
RMS signal jitter (green)
vsEnergy at each phase
Sig jitter due to phase jitter (red) is larger at fringe mid point and smaller at fringe peak(compare with bottom plot)
33