Bibliography

[1] David Griffiths. “Introduction to Elementary Particles”. John Wiley and Sons (1987).
[2] K. Higawara et al. “Particle Physics Booklet”. The Particle Data Group (July 2002). http://pdg.lbl.gov/
[3] Michael Peskin. “Physics at e+e Linear Colliders” (14-23 May 2002). Lecture given to SLAC Young Particle Physicists group. http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/ypp/meetings/lectureseries0502/lectureseries0502.html
[4] Douglas Ross. “The Standard Model”. In “Proceedings of the School for Young High Energy Physicists”, pages 74-144. CLRC (2001). RAL-TR-2001-016.
[5] F. Richard, J. R. Schneider, D. Trines & A. Wagner (editors). “TESLA Technical Design Report Part I: Executive Summary”. The TESLA Collaboration (March 2001). http://tesla.desy.de/new_pages/TDR_CD/PartI/exec.html
[6] S. Kuhlman et al. “Physics and Technology of the Next Linear Collider”. A Report Submitted to Snowmass ’96 (June 1996). SLAC-R-0485. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacreports/slac-r-485.html
[7] The American Linear Collider Working Group. “Linear Collider Physics Resource Book for Snowmass 2001” (June 2001). SLAC-R-0570. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacreports/slac-r-570.html
[8] J. Rees. “Colliders”. In “Handbook of Accelerator Physics and Engineering”, pages 11-13. World Scientific (1999).
[9] R. D. Heuer, D. Miller, F. Richard & P. Zerwas (editors). “TESLA Technical Design Report Part III: Physics at an e+e Linear Collider”. The TESLA Collaboration (March 2001). http://tesla.desy.de/new_pages/TDR_CD/PartIII/physic.html
[10] The Neutrino Factory/Muon Collider Collaboration. “Neutrino Factory and Muon Collider Feasability Studies” (2002). http://www.fnal.gov/projects/muon_collider/; see also http://www.cap.bnl.gov/mumu/
[11] CERN PhotoLab. “Overall view of the LHC experiments” (June 1999). CERN photo number: CERN-AC-9906026. http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/40525 and http://mediaarchive.cern.ch/MediaArchive/Photo/Public/1999/9906026/9906026/9906026-A4-at-144-dpi.jpg
[12] E. J. N. Wilson. “Synchrotrons and Storage Rings”. In “Handbook of Accelerator Physics and Engineering”, pages 42-44. World Scientific (1999).
[13] The NLC Collaboration. “2001 Report on the Next Linear Collider”. A Report Submitted to Snowmass 2001 (June 2001). SLAC-R-0571. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacreports/slac-r-571.html
[14] R. P. Walker. “Synchrotron Radiation”. In “Fifth General Accelerator Physics Course Vol. I”, pages 437-459. CERN Accelerator School (1994). CERN-94-01. http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/398429 and http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/398429/files/p437.pdf
[15] H. Wiedemann. “Radiation of a Point Charge”. In “Handbook of Accelerator Physics and Engineering”, pages 181-182. World Scientific (1999).
[16] M. A. Furman & M. S. Zisman. “Luminosity”. In “Handbook of Accelerator Physics and Engineering”, pages 247-250. World Scientific (1999).
[17] N. Phinney. “SLC Final Performance and Lessons”. In “Proceedings of the 20th International Linac Conference (LINAC 2000), Monterey, California”, pages 1-5 (21-25 August 2000). SLAC-PUB-8556. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C000821/MO102.pdf
[18] The NLC Design Group. “Zeroth-Order Design Report for the Next Linear Collider” (May 1996). SLAC-R-0474. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacreports/slac-r-474.html
[19] The TESLA Collaboration. “TESLA: the international linear collider and X-ray laser project” (2003). http://tesla.desy.de/
[20] The JLC Collaboration. “JLC: Electron-Positron Linear Collider Project” (2003). http://www-jlc.kek.jp/
[21] CERN. “The Compact Linear Collider Study” (2003). http://clic-study.web.cern.ch/
[22] R. Brinkmann, K. Flöttmann, J. Roßbach, P. Schmüser, N. Walker & H. Weise (editors). “TESLA Technical Design Report Part II: The Accelerator”. The TESLA Collaboration (March 2001). http://tesla.desy.de/new_pages/TDR_CD/PartII/accel.html
[23] A. D. Yeremian & R. H. Miller. “Electron Guns and Preinjectors”. In “Handbook of Accelerator Physics and Engineering”, pages 419-422. World Scientific (1999).
[24] H. G. Kirk, R. Miller & D. Yeremian. “Electron Guns and Pre-Injectors”. In “Handbook of Accelerator Physics and Engineering”, pages 99-103. World Scientific (1999).
[25] Simon Baird. “Accelerators for Pedestrians” (1998). Lecture course given for CERN PS Division. http://ps.web.cern.ch/ps/training/pedestrians/
[26] R. P. Walker. “Wigglers”. In “Fifth Advanced Accelerator Physics Course Vol. II”, pages 807-835. CERN Accelerator School (1995). CERN-95-06. http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/399409 and http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/399409/files/p807.pdf
[27] Marc Ross. “Review of Damping Ring design issues”. In “Proceedings of the 2003 Damping Ring workshop”, Daresbury Laboratory (27-29 January 2003). http://www.astec.ac.uk/conf/dampingring/proceedings/ross_drreview.pdf
[28] A. Drozhdin et al. “Comparison of the TESLA, NLC and CLIC Beam-Collimation System Performance”. LCC-0111, Linear Collider Collaboration Tech Notes (March 2003). http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/lc/ilc/TechNotes/LCCNotes/PDF/lcc-0111.pdf and http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-tn-03-003.pdf
[29] T. O. Raubenheimer & F. Zimmermann. “Operation of Final Focus Systems in Linear Colliders”. In “Handbook of Accelerator Physics and Engineering”, pages 257-263. World Scientific (1999).
[30] Josef Frisch. Private Communication.
[31] J. Roßbach & P. Schmüser. “Basic Course on Accelerator Optics”. In “Fifth General Accelerator Physics Course Vol. I”, pages 17-88. CERN Accelerator School (1994). CERN-94-01. http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/247501 and http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/247501/files/p17.tif
[32] D. A. Edwards & M. Syphers. “Linear Betatron Motion”. In “Handbook of Accelerator Physics and Engineering”, pages 49-50. World Scientific (1999).
[33] K. Brown. “Single Element Optics”. In “Handbook of Accelerator Physics and Engineering”, pages 55-59. World Scientific (1999).
[34] Oliver Bruening. “Maps”. CERN Accelerator School (15-26 October 2001). Lecture given at Intermediate Accelerator Physics Course, Seville, Spain. http://bruening.home.cern.ch/bruening/CAS/maps.pdf
[35] S. Guiducci. “Chromaticity”. In “Fifth General Accelerator Physics Course Vol. I”, pages 191-206. CERN Accelerator School (1994). CERN-94-01. http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/398300 and http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/398300/files/p191.pdf
[36] F. Zimmermann. “Beam Delivery”. Lecture Notes for “Accelerator Physics and Technologies for Linear Colliders”, Univ. of Chicago, Physics 575 (Feb. 2002). http://hep.uchicago.edu/~kwangje/LectureNotes_Zimmermann.pdf
[37] P. Raimondi & A. Seryi. “A Novel Final Focus Design for High Energy Linear Colliders”. In “Proceedings of the 7th European Particle Accelerator Conference (EPAC 2000), Vienna, Austria”, pages 492-494. CERN (26-30 June 2000). http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/e00/PAPERS/THP6A11.pdf
[38] J. Le Duff. “Dynamics and Acceleration in Linear Structures”. In “Fifth General Accelerator Physics Course Vol. I”, pages 253-288. CERN Accelerator School (1994). CERN-94-01. http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/157960 and http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/157960/files/p253.pdf
[39] Stanley Humphries. “Principles of Charged Particle Acceleration”. John Wiley and Sons (1986). http://www.fieldp.com/cpa.html
[40] Keith Jobe. “NLCTA Photo scrapbook - Accelerator structure installations” (7/9 May 2001). http://www.slac.stanford.edu/accel/nlc/local/Projects/NLCTA/pictures/accelerator/
[41] B. I. Bleaney & B. Bleaney. “Electricity and Magnetism”. Oxford University Press, 2nd edition (1965).
[42] R. H. Miller et al. “Room Temperature Accelerator Structures for Linear Colliders”. In “Proceedings of the 2001 Particle Accelerator Conference, Chicago, Vol. 5”, pages 3819-3821. FermiLab (18-22 June 2001). http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/p01/PAPERS/FPAH062.PDF
[43] Colin Perry. Private Communication.
[44] G. Caryotakis. “The Klystron: A Microwave Source of Surprising Range and Endurance”. Invited review paper for The American Physical Society, Division of Plasma Physics Conference in Pittsburgh, PA (18 Nov. 1997). SLAC-PUB-7731. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-7731.pdf
[45] H. D. Schwarz & M. Tigner. “Amplifier Systems”. In “Handbook of Accelerator Physics and Engineering”, pages 507-510. World Scientific (1999).
[46] K. Yokoya & P. Chen. “Beam-beam Phenomena in Linear Colliders”. In “Proceedings of the US-CERN School on Particle Accelerators - Frontiers of Particle Beams: Energy Limitations”, pages 415-445. Springer Verlag (7-14 Nov. 1990). KEK Preprint 91-2. http://www-sldnt.slac.stanford.edu/nlc/publications/beam-beam_Yokoya_Chen.ps
[47] Tom Markiewicz. “Interaction Region Issues at a Linear Collider”. Part of Linear Collider Line Drive series of talks given at Fermilab (1 Mar. 2001). http://www-lc.fnal.gov/Linedrive/talks/TomMarkiewicz.pdf
[48] P. Chen. “Beam-Beam Effects in Linear Colliders”. In “Handbook of Accelerator Physics and Engineering”, pages 140-144. World Scientific (1999).
[49] Tor Raubenheimer. “Accelerator Physics Issues in Linear Colliders”. Lecture given to Graduate Student Association of Fermilab as part of Linear Collider Lecture Series (25-28 March 2002). http://www.fnal.gov/orgs/gsa/classes/linear_colliders_02/Raubenheimer-1.pdf
[50] N. Solyak. “NLC/JLC and TESLA Overview”. Talk given for Linear Collider R&D Group at Fermilab (30 May 2002). http://www.hep.uiuc.edu/LCRD/pdf_docs/biweeklies_05_30_02_solyak.pdf
[51] F. Zimmermann et al. “Performance of the SLC 1994/95 SLC Final Focus System”. In “Proceedings of the 16th IEEE Particle Accelerator Conference, Dallas, Texas”, pages 656-658 (1-5 May 1995). http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/p95/ARTICLES/RPB/RPB01.PDF
[52] Courtesy of Glen White.
[53] L. Hendrickson et al. “Feedback Systems for Linear Colliders”. In “Proceedings of the 1999 Particle Accelerator Conference, New York: Vol 1”, pages 338-342 (29 Mar - 2 Apr 1999). SLAC-PUB-8055. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-8055.pdf
[54] J. Frisch. “IP Stabilisation for the NLC”. In “Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Linear Colliders (LC02), SLAC, CA”, (4-8 Feb 2002). SLAC-WP-21. http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/lc02/wg3/WG3-4_Frisch.pdf
[55] I. Reyzl. “Stabilization of Beam Interaction in the TESLA Linear Collider”. In “Proceedings of the 7th European Particle Accelerator Conference (EPAC 2000), Vienna, Austria”, pages 315-317. CERN (26-30 June 2000). http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/e00/PAPERS/WEOAF203.pdf
[56] Steve Smith. Private Communication.
[57] Daniel Schulte. “Simulations of an Intrapulse Interaction Point Feedback for the NLC”. LCC-0026, Linear Collider Collaboration Tech Notes (Sept. 1999). http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/lc/ilc/TechNotes/LCCNotes/PDF/lcc-0026.pdf
[58] Steve Smith. “Design of an NLC Intra-Pulse Feedback”. LCC-0056, Linear Collider Collaboration Tech Notes (March 2001). http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-tn-03-067.pdf and http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/lc/temp/NLC Tech Notes/LCC-0056 final.pdf
[59] Glen White. Private Communication.
[60] Courtesy of Steve Smith.
[61] R. E. Shafer. “Beam Position Monitoring”. In “Accelerator Instrumentation, Upton 1989”, pages 26-58. Amer. Inst. Phys. (1989). Prepared for The Physics of Particle Accelerators, Upton, NY, 1989. http://www.bergoz.com/products/BB-BPM/BB-BPM-downloads/files/Shafer-BPM.pdf
[62] P. Horowitz & W. Hill. “The Art of Electronics”. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition (1989).
[63] Bert C. Henderson. “Mixers: Theory And Technology”. RF and Microwave Designers Handbook (1997-98). The Watkins-Johnson Company.
[64] Novak Electronics. “The Schottky Diode” (2002). http://www.teamnovak.com/Tech_info/more_info/SCHOTTKY.HTM
[65] Vadim Manassewitsch. “Frequency Synthesizers - Theory and Design”. John Wiley and Sons (1976).
[66] Pulsar Microwave Corporation. “Mixers” (2002). http://www.pulsarmicrowave.com/products/mixers/mixers.htm
[67] Steve Smith & Simon Jolly. “BPM Processor Electronics Tests” (April 2001). FONT internal note.
[68] Glen White. “Simulation Studies - NLC/JLC & CLIC” (2001). http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/font/Simulation- NLC.htm
[69] R. A. McDunn & H. Quinn. “SLAC Virtual Visitors Center” (2002). http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/art/Maps/experimentsmap.gif
[70] Peter Tenenbaum. “Collimator Wakefield Experiment”. Talk given at NLC Beam Delivery Meeting (14th Sept. 1998). http://www-sldnt.slac.stanford.edu/nlc/Meetings/beamdelivery/1998-09-14-Tenenbaum/index.htm
[71] Peter Tenenbaum. “Collimator Wakefield Calculations for ILC-TRC Report”. LCC-0101, Linear Collider Collaboration Tech Notes (10th Sept. 2002). http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/lc/ilc/TechNotes/LCCNotes/PDF/LCC-0101.pdf and http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-tn-03-038.pdf
[72] Information courtesy of Mike Woods.
[73] SLAC Mechanical Design Document Control. Drawing ID AD-238-000-02. http://mdweb.slac.stanford.edu/Doc Control.ODA.php
[74] R. Carr et al. “A Precision measurement of the weak mixing angle in Møller scattering” (1997). SLAC-PROPOSAL-E-158. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/e158/documents/proposal.ps.gz
[75] The NLC Collaboration. “Next Linear Collider Test Accelerator Conceptual Design Report” (Aug. 1993). SLAC-R-411. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacreports/slac-r-411.html
[76] SLAC Mechanical Design Document Control. Drawing ID GP-290-004-04. http://mdweb.slac.stanford.edu/Doc Control.ODA.php
[77] Information courtesy of Mark Ross and Chris Adolphsen.
[78] M. Wendt. “BPM Instrumentation: A Short Introduction for Non-Experts” (September 2000). Introductory talk given at DESY lab.
[79] Stephen R. Smith. “Beam Position Monitor Engineering”. In “Proceedings of the 7th Beam Instrumentation Workshop (BIW 96), Argonne, IL”, pages 50-65. Amer. Inst. Phys. (6-9 May 1996). SLAC-PUB-7244. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-7244.pdf
[80] J. A. Hinkson. “Beam Position Monitors”. In “Handbook of Accelerator Physics and Engineering”, pages 555-557. World Scientific (1999).
[81] M. Wendt. “BPM Read-out Electronics Based on the Broadband AM/PM Normalisation Scheme”. In “Proceedings of the 5th European Workshop on Diagnostics and Beam Instrumentation for Particle Accelerators”, (2001). Grenoble, France, May 2001. http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/d01/papers/CT01.pdf
[82] G. Vismara. “The Comparison of Signal Processing Systems for Beam Position Monitors”. In “Proceedings of the 4th European Workshop on Diagnostics and Beam Instrumentation for Particle Accelerators”, pages 20-27 (1999). Chester, UK, May 1999. http://srs.dl.ac.uk/dipac/proceedings.pdf
[83] Peter Tenenbaum. Private Communication.
[84] SLAC Mechanical Design Document Control. Drawing ID SA-290-161-08. http://mdweb.slac.stanford.edu/Doc Control.ODA.php
[85] R. Lorenz. “Cavity Beam Position Monitors”. In “Proceedings of the 8th Beam Instrumentation Workshop (BIW 98), Stanford, CA”, pages 53-73 (4-7 May 1998). http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/confproc/biw98/lorenz1.pdf
[86] Chris Adolphsen. Private Communication.
[87] J. Arthur et al. “Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) Design Study Report” (April 1998). SLAC-R-521. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacreports/slac-r-521.html
[88] Kimball Physics. “Spherical Cube Multi-CF Fitting” (2001). http://www.kimballphysics.com/mcf_vacuum_fittings/Catalog_PDFs/Spher_Cube.pdf; see also http://www.kimballphysics.com/mcf_vacuum_fittings/Catalog_PDFs/Spherical_Cubes_1.pdf
[89] Kurt J. Lesker Company. “SMA Feedthrough with CF Flange, Single-Ended” (2002). http://www.lesker.com/cfdocs/newweb/Feedthroughs/Electrical_Feedthroughs/ Instrument_Feedthroughs/SMA_SingleEnd_CFFlange.cfm
[90] M. Tigner. “Common Transmission Lines and Cavities”. In “Handbook of Accelerator Physics and Engineering”, pages 368-374. World Scientific (1999).
[91] Agilent Technologies. “Agilent 8719ES/20ES/22ES Network Analyzers User's Guide” (2002). Model No.: 8719ES. http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/08720-90392.pdf
[92] Keith Jobe & Doug McCormick. Private Communication.
[93] Pulsar Microwave Corporation. “Mixers - High Frequency - Connectorized Packages” (2002). http://www.pulsarmicrowave.com/products/mixers/high_freq_cn.htm
[94] Institute for Semiconductor & Solid State Physics (Johannes Kepler University). “The Gunn Effect” (2001). http://www2.hlphys.uni-linz.ac.at/mmm/uebungen/gunn_web/gunn_effect.htm
[95] J. C. G. Lesurf. “Negative Resistance Oscillators”. In “The Scots Guide to Electronics” (2002). http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/RadCom/part5/page1.html
[96] Microwave Device Technologies. “MDT Catalog 2002”. http://www.mdtcorp.com/2002 MDT Catalog.pdf
[97] H. Koziol. “Beam Diagnostics”. In “Fifth General Accelerator Physics Course Vol. II”, pages 565-600. CERN Accelerator School (1994). CERN-94-01. http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/247621 and http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/247621/files/CM-P00059364.pdf
[98] Chris Nantista & Chris Adolphsen. “Beam Current Diagnostics”. NLCTA-Note #47 (12th May 1995). http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/lc/local/Projects/NLCTA/notes/_note_47.doc
[99] Matlab Function Reference. “Error Functions”. Matlab Help Documentation (2002). http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/techdoc/ref/erf.shtml
[100] Gavin Nesom. “BPM Ringing” (May 2002). FONT internal note.
[101] Pulsar Microwave Corporation. “Stripline Power Dividers - 2-way” (2002). P/N: PS2-16-450/8S. http://www.pulsarmicrowave.com/products/power_dividers/2-way_stripline.htm
[102] Weinschel Corporation. “Coaxial Phase Shifters” (2002). Model No.: 980-4. http://www.aeroflex.com/ams/weinschel/pdfiles/wmod980.pdf
[103] Nova Microwave. “Connectorized Isolator (SMA Female)” (2002). Model No.: 1070IES. http://www.novamicro.com/products/isolatorsmafemale.html
[104] Courtesy of William Palmer, Custom and Wireless. http://www.cw-sales.com/
[105] Pulsar Microwave Corporation. “Stripline Power Dividers - 4-way” (2002). P/N: PS4-12-452/7S. http://www.pulsarmicrowave.com/products/power_dividers/4-way_stripline.htm
[106] NLCTA MAD deck courtesy of Mark Woodley.
[107] SLAC Mechanical Design Document Control. Drawing ID SA-238-004-18. http://mdweb.slac.stanford.edu/Doc Control.ODA.php
[108] Power supply stability ranges courtesy of Dave McNair.
[109] Field strength measurements courtesy of Dave Jensen.
[110] C. R. Nave. “Hysteresis in Magnetic Materials” (2002). In “Hyperphysics - Physics of the Solid State”. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/hyst.html
[111] SLAC Mechanical Design Document Control. Drawing ID SA-446-540-14. http://mdweb.slac.stanford.edu/Doc Control.ODA.php
[112] SLAC Mechanical Design Document Control. Drawing ID SA-446-542-55. http://mdweb.slac.stanford.edu/Doc Control.ODA.php
[113] Marc Ross. Private Communication.
[114] Analog Devices. “250 MHz, Voltage Output 4-Quadrant Multiplier” (1994). Model No.: AD835AN. http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/data_sheets/AD835.pdf
[115] Analog Devices. “800 MHz, 50 mW Current Feedback Amplifier” (1999). Model No.: AD8001AN. http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/data_sheets/AD8001.pdf
[116] Micrel Semiconductor. “MIC29300 High-Current Low-Dropout Regulators” (1998). Model No.: MIC29300-5.0BT. http://www.micrel.com/_PDF/mic29150.pdf
[117] National Semiconductor. “LM2990 Negative Low Dropout Regulator” (1999). Model No.: LM2990T-5.0. http://www.national.com/ds/LM/LM2990.pdf
[118] Tektronix. “Digital Storage Oscilloscopes” (2002). Model No.: TDS684C. http://www.tek.com/Measurement/Products/catalog/tds684c/eng/55W_10066_9.pdf and http://www2.tek.com/cmswpt/psdetails.lotr?ct=PS&cs=psu&ci=14412&lc=EN
[119] Agilent Technologies. “Agilent E36XX-Series Manual DC Power Supplies” (2002). Model No.: E3630A. http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5959-5329.pdf
[120] Agilent Technologies. “Agilent 33250A 80 MHz Function/Arbitrary Waveform Generator” (2001). Model No.: 33250A. http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/33250-90001.pdf
[121] Josef Frisch, Colin Perry & Phil Burrows. Private Communication.
[122] Integrated Publishing. “Planar Tubes” (2002). In “Introduction to Electronic Emission, Tubes and Power Supplies”. http://www.tpub.com/neets/book6/21c.htm
[123] D. R. Hamilton, J. K. Knipp & J. B. Horner Kuper. “Klystrons and Microwave Triodes”, volume 6 of MIT Radiation Laboratory Series . McGraw-Hill, 1st edition (1948).
[124] Eimac (Communications & Power Industries). “8941/Y690 Planar Triode Technical Data” (1985). http://www.rell.com/resources/RellDocuments/SYS_15/8941.pdf
[125] Stanford Research Systems. “30 MHz Synthesized Function and Arbitrary Waveform Generator” (1999). Model: DS345. http://www.thinksrs.com/downloads/PDFs/Manuals/DS345m.pdf

Footnotes

1 Although the top quark was discovered after the bottom, it was one of the most widely predicted particles ever to be discovered. In fact, one could say that the last truly unexpected new particle to be discovered was the charm quark, since the discovery of the J/ψ in 1974 allowed confirmation of the quark model and precipitated the “November Revolution”; the bottom quark was merely considered an extension to the quark/parton model, already proposed as part of the CKM mechanism of quark mixing and prompted by the discovery of the tau lepton in 1975 [1].

2 Gravity has proved to be the one stumbling block that the Standard Model has been unable to account for. It is one of the aims of “Quantum Gravity” theories to be able to unify the Standard Model forces with General Relativity to place all the known forces of nature on an equal footing. The preliminary suggestion is that gravity is mediated by a spin-2 boson called the graviton.

3 It has been said that “The predictions of the Higgs sector and supersymmetry are likely to be completely wrong, but are our only useful reference point.” [3]

4 Neutrino oscillations arise from a mixing of the mass eigenstates with respect to the weak neutrino eigenstates: this essentially means that, while retaining their weak eigenstate, neutrinos can oscillate between the mass eigenstates. This is similar to the mixing of quarks that results in flavour-changing quark decays, mediated by the W±, and is only possible if the neutrinos have mass.

5 Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, or European Organisation for Nuclear Research.

6 It is theoretically possible to set the initial spin states of both leptons in an e+e collision: experimentally, certain difficulties must be overcome, such as the production of spin-polarised positrons, that reduce the net spin polarisation of the two beams to less than 100%.

7 The current design for the NLC includes an option for two IP's — one high and one low energy (see Fig. 1.3) — but the two cannot be operated concurrently, since each bunch can only be used once.

8 The energy loss from synchrotron radiation is actually dependent on γ4, where γ2 = 1/(1 − v2 / c2) for a particle with velocity v. Since γ = E/m0c2, for a particle of rest mass m0, this gives the E4 and 1/m4 dependence of the synchrotron energy loss [15].

9 This process is more economical for circular accelerators, since each bunch can be recycled rather than being accelerated from scratch.

10 A number of different layouts exist for the NLC, dependent primarily upon its location. The near-surface cut-and-cover configuration is designed for use in the suggested site in the Great Central Valley in California, with the deep-bored-tunnel design intended for use at the Fermilab site in Northern Illinois [13].

11 At the SLC the beam was modelled as a Gaussian distribution of particles, with a 1% tail that extends essentially to infinity (the ‘halo’). The beam dimensions — σx and σy — are therefore equivalent to the r.m.s. width of this Gaussian. This beam model profile is assumed here.

12 Since the angle of a particle trajectory, in a particular plane (say x), also defines the rate of change of position within that plane, the angle is denoted by the symbol for velocity (x′).

13 Wigglers are also used in synchrotron light sources, due to the narrow spread of very high intensity synchrotron radiation that they produce.

14 A radiation length, χ0, is defined as the depth of material required to reduce the energy of an incident particle to 1/e of its initial value, and is unique to each material.

15 All magnets behave in this fashion, acting like the next-lowest-order magnet whose strength varies with distance from the magnet centre i.e. a quadrupole acts like a dipole with a bending radius that is a function of horizontal position and a sextupole acts like a quadrupole with a focal length that is a function of horizontal position.

16 For the simpler rectangular waveguides only 2 subscripts (mn) are required and are related to the height and width of the waveguide cross section. For more complex cylindrical waveguides, such as an accelerating cavity, three subscripts are used: TMmnl, which indicate the azimuthal, radial and longitudinal mode numbers respectively. The azimuthal mode number is zero for azimuthally symmetric modes; the radial mode number minus one is the number of nodes in the radial variation of the E-field; the longitudinal mode number is zero for a constant longitudinal E-field [39].

17 The inner (or iris) diameter of the disks can actually vary along the length of the structure, depending on whether the structure is a constant gradient or constant impedance structure [38].

18 Initial State Radiation, or ISR, is the emission of a photon by one of the two initial state particles prior to collision. This is a stochastic process and results in a spread in the collision energy of the beam.

19 The latency of the system is defined as the combined flight time of the incoming beam to the kicker and the outgoing beam to the BPM, plus the signal propagation delay through the IPFB electronics. In other words, the time it takes for the BPM to measure an offset, pass a signal to the kicker, have the kicker correct the beam and finally see the results of this correction. This is predicted to be on the order of 30 ns for the real system: 2×12 ns time-of-flight from IP to the IPFB system (situated ~4 m from the IP), plus 6 ns processing time [58].

20 Baseband is the frequency space enthusiast's term for a signal that tends towards DC, or a signal with a dominant component at zero Hertz.

21 Other such active filters include the Chebyshev (fast rolloff from passband to stopband) and Butterworth (maximum flatness of frequency within the passband) [62].

22 When driven as a modulator i.e. when upconverting a signal to a high frequency and making use of the ω1 + ω2 frequency, the input signal to be modulated is normally input into the IF port, with the resulting high frequency signal coming from the RF port; the LO remains unchanged.

23 Other mixer types include single-balanced — consisting of a pair of diodes — and single-ended, with just a single diode. As the mixer layout increases in complexity, there is a corresponding improvement in port isolation and reduction in intermodulation products [63].

24 An IP-BPM flight time of 6.6 ns corresponds to the IPFB system being ~2 m downstream of the IP. This is unlikely to be the true location, since it places the IPFB system well within the detector; however, it does not affect the principle of operation of the system.

25 Appropriately-modified in this context means that the filter frequencies would have to be correctly tuned for the E158 bunch spacing i.e. 2856 MHz. The LO input for the mixer would therefore also be set to 2856 MHz.

26 The klystron gallery is the building that sits directly above the accelerator tunnel, above ground, and houses the klystrons that power the linac accelerating structures.

27 © Glen White, 2001.

28 The given beam energy is for an unaccelerated beam, in which only the pre-accelerator that resides upstream of the chicane is used to power the beam, rather than any of the test structures downstream of the chicane.

29 100 µm / 10 µm vertical jitter = a factor of 10; 62 MeV / 1.2 GeV = a factor of 1/20th. Therefore the beam has to be kicked 10/20 = 1/2 as far for the NLCTA as for Sector 2.

30 For example, in the SLC, the BPM processors used for the stripline BPM's, with ~10 cm strips (giving Fc ≈ 714 MHz), filter the signal at 30 MHz. This is significantly cheaper than filtering at 714 MHz, and given the large number of BPM's involved is the most cost-effective solution [83].

31 Kimball Physics part no. for spherical cube: MCF133-SC6-A.

32 BPM assembly and pickoff tuning procedure carried out by Gavin Nesom, Oxford University.

33 0 dBm = 1 mW. The relation between dBm and mW is: mW = 10(dBm/10) or 10log10(mW) = dBm.

34 Although the Gunn diode is not a diode in the strict sense, since the I-V behaviour is the same for both positive and negative applied voltage, it is this nonlinear behaviour, between Vpeak and Vvalley, that gives it its name.

35 Strictly speaking power can pass in both directions through an isolator, but the attenuation in the backwards direction is some four orders of magnitude higher than the forward direction: the measured attenuation for the isolators used was 1.3 dB for the forward direction and 41 dB for the backward. This enormous difference in signal attenuation gives the isolator its directional behaviour.

36 Power reduction factor = 10dB/10; voltage reduction is the square root of this value since P ∝ V2.

37 The definition of σ for the two pulse types is different: the Gaussian pulse uses the usual definition, with ~63% of the particles in the bunch contained within ±1σ; for the square pulse, σ is half the pulse width.

38 The 15 dB attenuator was used as the original 10 dB attenuator could not be located at the time the measurement was made. It is possible that the S11 loss for the 10 dB attenuator is smaller than that measured for the 15 dB attenuator, giving a value for the total attenuation closer to the measured reflection.

39 The 2-way Splitter/Combiners used were Pulsar Microwave 2-way stripline power dividers, part no.: PS2-16-450/8S [101].

40 The mixer output becomes nonlinear with an RF input greater than +5 dBm, as can be seen in Fig. 4.23.

41 All the phase shifters used were MCE/Weinschel coaxial phase shifters; model no.: 980-4 [102].

42 The isolators used were Nova Microwave connectorized SMA isolators, model no.: 1070IES [103].

43 The 4-way Splitter/Combiner used was a Pulsar Microwave 4-way stripline power divider, part no.: PS4-12-452/7S [105].

44 One of this pair of phase shifters is essentially redundant, since only one is required to adjust the relative phase between the two signal paths. However, since both the phase and signal attenuation of both paths had to be exactly matched, it is much simpler to achieve this with a pair of identical phase shifters.

45 Due to the multiplication process of the mixer, two completely in phase signals of identical frequency produce a maximally positive output; for a 180° phase difference the output is maximally negative. A phase difference of ±90° between the two signals produces no output.

46 The signal was made maximally negative, rather than positive, since the BPM was required to produce a negative output if the beam was low of centre, and a positive output if the beam was high of centre.

47 It is possible that the stripline BPM response may become nonlinear for a beam that is a significant fraction of the beampipe diameter away from the centre [30,61]. A dipole magnet, however, should show no such nonlinearity, so the fact that such a clear linear response is evident in Fig. 4.38 is an excellent indication that the position as measured by the BPM is correct.

48 Roughly speaking, a 10% signal difference of this nature corresponds to a 10% larger signal pickup on one pickoff with respect to the other i.e. the beam is closer to one pickoff by 10% of the pickoff spacing. For a cavity size of 35 mm, this corresponds to a beam off-centre by 1.67 mm, not an unreasonable figure given the range shown in Fig. 4.38.

49 At least, if there are problems with the BPM processor that are causing the appearance of these artefacts in the normalised position measurement, they are certainly repeatable.

50 A number of attempts were made to produce a complete 2-D profile scan of the aperture of the beampipe of the FONT BPM using the integrated charge measured by the toroid and the BPM sum signal. However, due to the rapid deterioration of the beam, even over the course of a couple of minutes, coupled with the length of time required to record the position measurements and change the magnet currents, it proved impossible to do so.

51 The error is calculated from the mean r.m.s. spread of the position measurements shown in Fig. 4.59.

52 Magnets identified and located by Cherrill Spencer and released by Jim Allen.

53 Data on NLCTA dipole and quadrupole magnet gradients taken from the SCP.

54 It is therefore likely, since the shape of the curves in Figs. 4.57 and 5.14 for both the sum signal and toroid is so similar, that the signal degradation is a result of the aperture of the FONT BPM. Since the transmission profile of all the measurements shows no plateau, the likelihood is that the beam is larger than the FONT BPM beampipe diameter.

55 Magnets identified and located by Paul Stephens and Marc Ross and released by Jim Allen.

56 The designation of pairs of connectors as ‘input’ and ‘output’ is essentially redundant, and dependent only on the pair to which the supply voltage is connected: there is no mechanical or electrical difference between any of the four connectors. In practice, only one input and output connector is used: the kicker assembly has four connectors, rather than two, to allow the connection of a second power supply to allow a greater voltage to be applied.

57 1 T = 104 G ⇒ 1 T-m = 10 kG-m.

58 Q-switch power supply, ID 102-002, designed, built and supplied for FONT's use by Dave Brown at SLAC.

59 A Pockels cell is a high speed optical switch that uses a voltage to modulate the refractive index of a crystal. A fast, high voltage power supply is required to change the field applied to the crystal at high speed, allowing fast switching of an optical source, such as a laser.

60 A gain of 5 rather than 4 is used for the output amplifier to take account of the inherent gain of each of the multiplier chips of 0.95, as well as any transmission loss.

61 DC supply board machined and assembled by Matt Sorgenfrei at SLAC.

62 NLCTA control and DAQ is split between two micro's: TA01, primarily responsible for the front half of the accelerator, up to quad QD1110, and TA02, used for the rear section of the accelerator.

63 In truth, the Z offset adjust is not necessary, since the feedback circuit itself removes any DC offset through its AC-coupled inputs (see Fig. 5.24). However, the addition of such adjusts was neither time consuming nor detrimental to the operation of the circuit, so they were included in the same fashion as before.

64 Beam length measurements taken from the SCP.

65 The net offset merely means that the beam is displaced slightly further downwards than if the FONT dipole were operating alone. Since the kicker and dipole magnets occupy the same location, the net effect is as if the dipole had been steered slightly downwards. Any such offset can therefore be taken out with the dipole.

66 To prevent the AWG 1/Q signal overdriving the input of the normaliser stage, the AWG output is limited to 2 V. This means that, at the start of the beam pulse, when the beam charge is low, the AWG pulse is artifically low. This limits the usable pulse length to that with a large enough beam charge, and results in approximately the first 5 ns of the pulse being unusable. The same is also true for the end of the pulse.

67 A 14 dB attenuator provides a factor of 25 reduction in power and therefore a factor 5 reduction in voltage, dropping the peak-to-peak voltage to the BPM sum input to 200 mV.


BACK TO THESIS CONTENTS

© Simon Jolly 2003