BPM model simplification ? #54
Replies: 2 comments 9 replies
-
|
I think it is important to have a way to define bpm models. It will also help for simulated commissioning where BPM errors cannot be handled at the level of the tracking code. At some point we also have to think about turn-by-turn data. I would find the following more natural: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
It is not really the purpose of the BPM model. The purpose of the BPM model is rather to handle a conversion from hardware (electrode voltage) to position. For errors, we will add methods (similar to offset or tilt) that will be independent of underlying models. Rougly speaking, we can imagine: sr.design.get_bpm("BPM_C01-01").offset.set(1e-3)
sr.error[0].get_bpm("BPM_C01-01").position_error.set(sigma=100e-6,cut_off=2.0) # Add an offset error using seed defined for simulator #0TbT is no yet implemented but other methods will be added from them, similarly to instant popsitions. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hello,
Today we have a BPM model which is not used (it is an identiy model).
My question is: Do we want to keep this model for instance to be able to implement DoS (or other model) from electrode voltage or can we simplify the BPM configuration ?
At ESRF, we implemented a more accurate model than DoS mainly for machine commissioning purpose but we don't need this to be implemented in PyAML.
Actual config:
which could allow:
Simplified config (no model):
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions