2007
DOI: 10.1103/physrevstab.10.101001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Orbit feedback system for maintaining an optimum beam collision

Abstract: An orbit feedback system around the interaction point (IP) has been developed and successfully employed at KEKB for more than 6 years. The purpose of the system is to maintain an optimum geometrical relationship of orbits of two beams at the IP and to prevent a luminosity degradation due to orbit drifts. The feedback system is based on orbit measurements around the IP rather than a direct measurement of the luminosity. Owing to the system, the luminosity degradation due to the orbit drifts is suppressed to aro… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A trajectory control to a 5 m level is achieved with the implementation of theoretical response matrices. The adoption of theoretical matrices for the entire machine, versus standard methods that are based on the measurement or postprocessing of empirical response matrices [17][18][19][20], speeds up the process when sizable changes are made to the lattice, avoids particle losses that may occur during the computation of experimental matrices, and confirms the agreement of the experimental magnetic focusing with the model.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…A trajectory control to a 5 m level is achieved with the implementation of theoretical response matrices. The adoption of theoretical matrices for the entire machine, versus standard methods that are based on the measurement or postprocessing of empirical response matrices [17][18][19][20], speeds up the process when sizable changes are made to the lattice, avoids particle losses that may occur during the computation of experimental matrices, and confirms the agreement of the experimental magnetic focusing with the model.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…In the vertical, the much smaller beam size leads to considerably tighter crossing-angle tolerances, not only to ensure the geometrical overlap of the ribbon-like beams, but mainly because the deleterious impact of the beam-beam interaction rapidly grows when the vertical crossing angle exceeds ∼ 10 µrad: a similar sensitivity has been observed in KEKB [19]. Figure 48 displays the measured mean vertical boost angle y B and the vertical luminous tilt y L , whose difference is consistent with zero considering the measurement uncertainties.…”
Section: Crossing Anglesmentioning
confidence: 48%
“…• In the case of the crossing angle at KEKB, the horizontal offset at the IP was controlled by looking at the vertical beam size measured by the interferometer [158]. • Tuning of the local coupling and dispersion at the IP by making offsets of orbits at sextupoles near the IP [149].…”
Section: Collision Tuningmentioning
confidence: 99%