140 likes | 248 Views
Hall C SHMS Fringe Field Analysis. Michael Moore Hall C Winter Meeting 2-22-2014. Outline. The Fringe Field Problem TOSCA model Results of simulations Conclusions Work that still needs to be done. SHMS Elements. Dipole. Q3 Q2 Q1 HB Target. How C lose is too Close?.
E N D
Hall C SHMS Fringe Field Analysis Michael Moore Hall C Winter Meeting 2-22-2014
Outline • The Fringe Field Problem • TOSCA model • Results of simulations • Conclusions • Work that still needs to be done
SHMS Elements Dipole Q3 Q2 Q1 HB Target
How Close is too Close? HB Yoke Cryostat (coils inside) Beamline HMS Q1
The Model MSU’s 1006 Fe 1006 Fe 1010 HB Q1 Q3 Q2
Displacements *Not drawn to scale 49 m, target to dump distance z Displacement from center of beamdump window x Beam Dump Window 4” diameter x Beam Trajectory Target (9.21,-175.76) Beamline axis
“As Built” Fringe Fields By Along Beampipe “As Built”, 11 GeV By (G) HB Q1 Q2 Q3 Z (cm)
Wedges Fringe Fields By Along Beampipe “Extra Fe”, 11 GeV By (G) HB Q3 Q1 Q2 Z (cm)
60 cm Pipe Pipe HB
Two meter Pipe Pipe HB
Conclusions • As built, the SHMS is a >10 degree spectrometer • With extra Iron on the yoke it is a > 9 degree spectrometer • Iron pipe with wedges shows promise as a solution Still to do • Run pipe and Q2 collar at more angles and energies • Optimize for smallest pipe length • Add HMS (at least Q1) to the model