1 / 16

Comparison of EMMA Parameter Predictions

Comparison of EMMA Parameter Predictions. Eberhard Keil. EMMA Lattice. Baseline lattice defined by Berg Hard edges Regular polygon with 42 sides and corners Corners at QD end of long straight sections Quadrupoles displaced with respect to polygon sides

dasan
Download Presentation

Comparison of EMMA Parameter Predictions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ComparisonofEMMA Parameter Predictions Eberhard Keil EMMA Commissioning 24Feb 2010

  2. EMMA Lattice • Baselinelatticedefinedby Berg • Hardedges • Regular polygonwith 42 sidesandcorners • Corners at QD end oflongstraightsections • Quadrupolesdisplacedwithrespecttopolygonsides • 21 kineticenergiesfrom 10 to 20 MeV • Display differences in time offlightcT(δ)-ct(0) EMMA Commissioning 24Feb 2010

  3. Programs EMMA Commissioning 24Feb 2010

  4. EMMA Lattice Parameters EMMA Commissioning 24Feb 2010

  5. Horizontal cell tune EMMA Commissioning 24Feb 2010

  6. Verticalcell tune EMMA Commissioning 24Feb 2010

  7. Time offlightcT in metres per cell EMMA Commissioning 24Feb 2010

  8. Radial offset X in metres EMMA Commissioning 24Feb 2010

  9. Discussion • Fewerthan 5 curves on all graphs • Resultsagreewithinlinethickness • B & P agree in all 4 quantities • S & Z agree in horizontal celltunesqx • Z agreeswith B & P in verticalcelltunesqy • (B & P) and (F & S & Z) agree in radial offsets X and time offlightcT • More disagreements in qx, qythan in X, cT EMMA Commissioning 24Feb 2010

  10. Conclusions • Different resultsfrom design program B and online program Z • Can hardlypredict integral partsofmachinetunesQxandQy • UncertainfractionalpartsofQxandQy • MustbepreparedforanyQxandQy in range • Injectionorbitoffsetsdifferbyabout 1.4 mm • Mustbeabletoinjectontoorbitswithinrange EMMA Commissioning 24Feb 2010

  11. EMMA in MAD-X I – Displacedquads • Quadrupolesdefinedby Berg displacedwithrespecttoreferencelinewhichis NOT theorbitofthe 15 MeVelectron • Donewith EALIGN and YROTATION commandsunderstoodby SURVEY • Representationof real EMMA elementsandgeometry • Verticalcell tune from PTC_TWISS muchsmallerthan in otherprogramsincluding stand-alone PTC, probablyexplainedbyMéot EMMA Commissioning 24Feb 2010

  12. EMMA in MAD-X II - Dipoles • Combined-functiondipolesaligned on trajectoryof 15 MeVelectron • Zero slipfactorbyvaryingbendingangles • All 4 magnetfaces parallel • Don‘tknowwherethekinksare • Verticalcell tune agreeswithotherprogramsincluding stand-alone PTC EMMA Commissioning 24Feb 2010

  13. Horizontal celltuneswith MAD-X EMMA Commissioning 24Feb 2010

  14. Verticalcelltuneswith MAD-X EMMA Commissioning 24Feb 2010

  15. Times offlightcT in m with MAD-X EMMA Commissioning 24Feb 2010

  16. Conclusion on EMMA in MAD-X • Ongoingwork – Who wouldliketojoin? • Displacedquadrupolesandkinksdescribe EMMA geometryexactly, but needwork on MAD-PTC interface – Will itcomefrom CERN? • Dipolesneedwork on theirorientationtodescribe EMMA geometryexactly, mayneedmagnetrotations, mayhavethe same problemswithreferencelineandtrajectory EMMA Commissioning 24Feb 2010

More Related