Upload
ulysses-mcdaniel
View
34
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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?. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Outline
• The Fringe Field Problem• TOSCA model• Results of simulations• Conclusions• Work that still needs to be done
Displacements
Beam Dump Window4” diameter
x
𝑥=(𝑟 −𝐷𝑥)cos (𝛼)cos (𝛾−𝛼)
3𝑜
𝜃
𝛼
𝛾
z
x 𝐷𝑥𝑟
𝐷
Target (9.21,-175.76)
49 m, target to dump distance
*Not drawn to scale
∎3𝑜 𝑖𝑠𝐻𝐵𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒
Beamline axis
Displacement from center of beamdump window
∎𝜃 𝑖𝑠𝑆𝐻𝑀𝑆𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒∎𝛾=𝜃+3
Beam Trajectory
“As Built” Fringe Fields
HB Q1 Q2 Q3
Integral: -126664Maximum: 1825.34Minimum: -2796.38
By Along Beampipe “As Built”, 11 GeV
By (G
)
Z (cm)
Wedges Fringe Fields
By (G
)
Z (cm)
By Along Beampipe “Extra Fe”, 11 GeV
HB Q1 Q2 Q3
Integral: -72477.1Maximum: 1427.82Minimum: -1814.02
Conclusions
• Run pipe and Q2 collar at more angles and energies• Optimize for smallest pipe length• Add HMS (at least Q1) to the model
Still to do
• 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