Post on 24-Feb-2016
description
MOLLER Spectrometer Update
Juliette M. Mammei
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
2
OUTLINE• The Physics– Search for physics beyond the Standard Model– Interference of Z boson with single photon in Møller scattering– Measure the weak charge of the electron and sin2θW – Sensitivity comparable to the two high energy collider
measurements
• The Experiment– High rate, small backgrounds – 150 GHz, 8% backgrounds – Novel toroid design, with multiple current returns– Full azimuthal acceptance, scattering angles from 5.5-19
mrads, 2.5-8.5 GeV– 150cm (5 kW) target, detectors 28m downstream
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013 3
APV = 35.6 ± 0.73 ppb
THE PHYSICS
𝛿 sin2𝜃𝑊
sin2𝜃𝑊≃ .05
𝛿 𝐴𝑃𝑉
𝐴𝑃𝑉
e- e-
e- e-
𝑄𝑊𝑒 𝐺𝐹
𝓛𝒆𝟏𝒆𝟐
𝑷𝑽 =𝓛𝑺𝑴𝑷𝑽 +𝓛𝑵𝑬𝑾
𝑷𝑽
∝𝑚𝑒𝐸 𝑙𝑎𝑏 (1−4 𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝜃𝑊 )
≈1×10− 8𝐴𝑃𝑉=𝜎+¿−𝜎−
𝜎+¿+𝜎−≈ ¿
¿2
Erler, Kurylov, Ramsey-Musolf
MEASUREMENT OF sin2θW
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013 4
MOLLER
Z-pole
𝑚𝑡=172 .7±2 .9𝐺𝑒𝑉
MOLLER
Erler
∆ 𝛼h𝑎𝑑(5 ) =0 .02758±0 .00035
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
5
THE EXPERIMENTDetector Array
Roman Pots
(for tracking detectors)
Scattering Chamber
Target
Hybrid Torus
Upstream Torus
Incoming Beam28 m Collimators
e-
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013 6
Forward
Backward
Forward Backward
COM Frame
e-
e-
e-
e-
Lab Frame
e-
e-
e-
Any odd number of coils will work
100% Azimuthal Acceptance
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
7(Rate weighted 1x1cm2 bins)
Tracks in GEANT4
Mollers
eps
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
8
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
9
I. Large phase space of possible changesA. Field (strength, coil position and profile)B. Collimator location, orientation, sizeC. Choice of Primary collimatorD. Detector location, orientation, size
II. Large phase space of relevant propertiesA. Moller rate and asymmetryB. Elastic ep rate and asymmetryC. Inelastic rate and asymmetryD. Transverse asymmetryE. Neutral/other background rates/asymmetriesF. Ability to measure backgrounds (the uncertainty is what’s important)
1. Separation between Moller and ep peaks2. Profile of inelastics in the various regions3. Degree of cancellation of transverse (F/B rate, detector symmetry)4. Time to measure asymmetry of backgrounds (not just rate)
G. Beam Properties (location of primary collimator)
Large Phase Space for Design
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
10
Conductor layout
Spectrometer Design
Optics tweaks
Optimize collimators
Ideal current distribution
Add’l input from us
Engineering design
• Fill azimuth at low radius, far downstream
• Half azimuth at upstream end• No interferences• Minimum bends 5x OD of wire• Minimum 5x ms radius• Double-pancake design• Clearance for insulation, supports
• Return to proposal optics or better• Optimize Moller peak• Minimize ep backgrounds• Symmetric front/back scattered mollers
(transverse cancellation)• Different W distributions in different
sectors (inelastics, w/ simulation)
• Force calculations • Symmetric coils• asymmetric placement of coils• Sensitivity studies• Materials• Coils in vacuum or not
• Water-cooling connections• Support structure• Electrical connections• Power supplies
• Optimize Moller peak• Eliminate 1-bounce photons• Minimize ep backgrounds• Symmetric front/back scattered
mollers (transverse cancellation)• Different W distributions in different
sectors (inelastics, w/ simulation)
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
11
Spectrometer Meetings
• Director’s Review – January 2010• Advisory Group Meeting – August 2010• Collaboration Meeting – December 2010• Supergroup Meeting – June 2012• Collaboration Meeting – September 2012
• Collaboration Meeting – June 2013• Advisory Group Meeting – October 2013
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
12
Suggestions of Advisory Group
• larger conductor and hole (→1550 A/cm2)• wanted a better representation of the fields, space
constraints, etc., wanted Br, Bphi• larger vacuum chamber instead of petals• Wish list:
– Get rid of negative bend– Use iron to reduce current density
No showstoppers!
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
13
Work since original proposal• First Engineering Review
o Verified the proposal map in TOSCAo Created an actual conductor layout with acceptable optics
• Since the engineering reviewo New conductor layout, take into account keep-out zoneso Water cooling more feasibleo Preliminary look at the magnetic forces
• Interfacing with engineerso JLab engineers estimate that pressure head is not an issueo New conductor layout with larger water cooling hole o Coil carrier and support structure designo Working toward a “cost-able” design for DOE review soon
Purchase of a new machine and TOSCA license for use at University of Manitoba
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
14
Proposal Model to TOSCA modelHome built code using a Biot-Savart calculation
Optimized the amount of current in various segments (final design had 4 current returns)
Integrated along lines of current, without taking into account finite conductor size
“Coils-only” Biot-Savart calculation
Verified proposal model
Created a first version with actual coil layout
Created second version with larger water cooling hole and nicer profile; obeyed keep-out zones
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
15
Concept 2 – Post-review4C 4R4L
1AR1AL
1BL 1BR
2L
3L
2R
3R
Current density not an issue, but affects cooling
Larger conductoro Larger water-cooling hole o Fewer connectionso Less chance of developing a plug
New layouto Use single power supplyo Keep-out zones/toleranceso Need to think about supportso Study magnetic forces
Continued simulation efforto Consider sensitivitieso Re-design collimationo Power of incident radiation
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
16
Layout
1AR1AL
1BL 1BR
2L
3L
2R
3R4C 4R4L
1AR1AL
1BL 1BR
2L
3L
2R
3R
1AR1AL
1BL 1BR
2L 2R
1AR1AL
1BL 1BR
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
17
Upstream Torus
zcoll = 590cm
ztarg,up = -75cmztarg,center = 0cmztarg,down = 75cm
θlow = 5.5mradθhigh = 17mrad
Rinner = 3.658cmRouter = 11.306cm
From center: From downstream:
θlow,cen = 6.200mrads θlow,down = 7.102mradsθhigh,cen = 19.161mrads θhigh,down = 21.950mrads
Finite Target Effects
Rinner
Router
ztarg,downztarg,up ztarg,center
θlow,up
θlow,down
θhigh,up
θhigh,down
Assume 5.5 mrads at upstream end of target, instead of center
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
19
Looking downstream
x
y
φ=-360°/14
φ=+36
0°/1
4
B
r
φIn this septant:
By ~ Bφ
Bx ~ Br
By
Bx ByBx
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
20
up (z0 =-75 cm) 5.5 to 15 mrads middle (z0 =0 cm) 6.0 to 17 mrads down (z0 =75 cm) 6.5 to 19 mrads
All phi valuesTracks colored by theta from purple to red (low to high)
Tracks in TOSCA
Not using the mesh - “coils only” calculation fast enough on my machine
- Actual layout much slower – use blocky version or improve mesh
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
21
BMODz=1375 cm
Field representations
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
22
Radial plot, middle of open sector
BMOD
Z=1375, φ = 0
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
23
Radial plot, edge of open sector
BMOD
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
24
Around Azimuth
Cent
er o
f op
en se
ctor
Z=1375, r = 13.5 cm
BMOD
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
25
up (z0 =-75 cm) 5.5 to 15 mrads middle (z0 =0 cm) 6.0 to 17 mrads down (z0 =75 cm) 6.5 to 19 mrads
phi=0 onlyTracks colored by theta from purple to red (low to high)
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
26
up (z0 =-75 cm) 5.5 to 15 mrads middle (z0 =0 cm) 6.0 to 17 mrads down (z0 =75 cm) 6.5 to 19 mrads
phi=0 only, near magnetTracks colored by theta from purple to red (low to high)
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
27
up (z0 =-75 cm) 5.5 to 15 mrads middle (z0 =0 cm) 6.0 to 17 mrads down (z0 =75 cm) 6.5 to 19 mrads
phi = 0 , Mollers only
3.0
Tracks colored by theta from purple to red (low to high)
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
28
up (z0 =-75 cm) 5.5 to 15 mrads middle (z0 =0 cm) 6.0 to 17 mrads down (z0 =75 cm) 6.5 to 19 mrads
phi=0 only, near magnet, mollers only
3.0
Tracks colored by theta from purple to red (low to high)
up (z0 =-75 cm) 5.5 and 15 mrads middle (z0 =0 cm) 6.0 and 17 mrads down (z0 =75 cm) 6.5 and 19 mrads
phi=0 onlygreen – epsblue - mollers
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
30
up (z0 =-75 cm) 5.5 and 15 mrads middle (z0 =0 cm) 6.0 and 17 mrads down (z0 =75 cm) 6.5 and 19 mrads
phi=0 only, near magnet
3.0
green – epsblue - mollers
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
31
Tweaking the Optics
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90
5
10
15
20
25Width of radial focus
"Good" angles"All" angles
Version
Wid
th (c
m)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90
5
10
15
20
25Separation of ends
"Good" angles"All" angles
Version
Sepa
ratio
n (c
m)
0 (1.0) 8 (2.11)
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
32
2.8 (blue)ee 3.0 (red) 2.0 (green)
Tracks from middle of target (z=0), phi =0 only 6.0 and 17 mrads
ep
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
33
2.8 (blue)ee 3.0 (red) 2.0 (green)
ep
Tracks from center of target, phi =0 only 6.0 and 17 mrads
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
34
3.0 (default)
2.8
up (z0 =-75 cm) 5.5 to 15 mrads middle (z0 =0 cm) 6.0 to 17 mrads down (z0 =75 cm) 6.5 to 19 mrads
ep
ee
ep
ee
Tracks colored by theta from purple to red (low to high)
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
35
GEANT4• Moved to GDML geometry description• Defined hybrid and upstream toroids
• Parameterized in same way as the TOSCA models
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
36
GEANT4 - Collimators
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
37
GEANT4 – Acceptance definition
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
38
Collimator Optimization
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
39
Comparison of GEANT4 Simulations
Proposal
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
41
Comparison of GEANT4 Simulations
TOSCA version
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
4242
2.6
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
43
Current Version of the Hybrid and Upstream
43
Default svn
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
44
Magnetic Forces
• Use TOSCA to calculate magnetic forces on coils
• Have calculated the centering force on coil:~3000lbs (compare to Qweak: 28000 lbs)
• Need to look at effects of asymmetric placement of coils
• Could affect the manufacturing tolerances
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
45
Sensitivity Studies• Need to consider the effects of
asymmetric coils, misalignments etc. on acceptance
• This could affect our manufacturing tolerances and support structure
• Have created field maps for a single coil misplaced by five steps in:– -1° < pitch < 1° – -4° < roll < 4° – -1° < yaw < 1° – -2 < r < 2 cm– -10 < z < 10 cm– -5° < φ < 5°
• Simulations need to be run and analyzed
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
46
Ongoing/Future Work
• Ongoing/Future worko Optimization of the opticso Magnetic force studieso Sensitivity studieso Collimator optimizationo Design of the water-cooling and supportso Design of electrical connectionso Look at optics for 3 coils
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
47
Extra Slides
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
48
Sector Orientation
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
49
Collimator Study
see elog 200
Look at focus for different
• Sectors• Parts of target
Useful for optics tweaks and collimator optimization
Ideally the strips would be vertical in these (actually theta vs. radius) plots
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
50
Water-cooling and supportsVerified by MIT engineers – cooling could be accomplished in concept 2 with 4 turns per loop Still 38 connections per coil!
Suggestion from engineering review: Put the magnets inside the vacuum volume
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
51
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
52
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
53
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
54
GEANT4 – Upstream Torus
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
55
GEANT4 – Hybrid Torus
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
56
GEANT4
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
57
Direct Comparison of FieldsComplicated field because of multiple current returns
The average total field in a sector in bins of R vs. z
The difference of the total field in a sector in bins of R vs. z for the TOSCA version of the proposal and the original proposal model
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
58
Comparison of field valuesRed – proposal modelBlack – TOSCA model By (left) or Bx (right) vs. z in 5° bins in phi
-20°— -15°
-25°— -20° -25°— -20°
-5°— 0°
-20°— -15°
-5°— 0°
-15°— -10°
-10°— -5°
-15°— -10°
-10°— -5°
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
59
Proposal Model
OD (cm)
Acond (cm2)
Total # Wires Current (A) Current per wire J (A/cm2)
X Y Z A X Y Z A
Proposal --- --- --- --- 7748 10627 16859 29160 --- 1100
0.4115 0.1248 40 54 86 146 7989 10785 17176 29160 200 1600
0.4620 0.1568 32 44 70 120 7776 10692 17010 29160 243 1550
0.5189 0.1978 26 36 56 94 8066 11168 17372 29160 310 1568
0.5827 0.2476 20 28 40 76 7680 10752 15360 29184 384 1551
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
60
Actual Conductor Layout
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
61
Choose constraints• Choose (standard) conductor size/layout minimizes current density
• Try to use “double pancakes”; as flat as possible
• Minimum bend radius 5x conductor OD
• Fit within radial, angular acceptances (360°/7 and <360°/14 at larger radius)
• Total current in each inner “cylinder” same as proposal model
• Take into account water cooling hole, insulation
• Need to consider epoxy backfill and aluminum plates/ other supports?
Radial extent depends on upstream torus and upstream parts of hybrid!!
Conductor SizeTrade-off between more insulation for smaller conductor and losing space at the “edges” with larger conductor
Also need to fit all the conductor in a particularradius at a given z location
Much bigger conductors have even higher current densities because of “edge” effects
Need to “fill” the available space at low radius
Conductor SizeTrade-off between more insulation for smaller conductor and losing space at the “edges” with larger conductor
Also need to fit all the conductor in a particularradius at a given z location
Much bigger conductors have even higher current densities because of “edge” effects
1LA 1C 1RA
1RB1LB
2LA
3LA
2RA
3RA
2RB2LB
3LB 3RB 1RC1LC
2C
3C
Need to “fill” the available space at low radius
Conductor SizeTrade-off between more insulation for smaller conductor and losing space at the “edges” with larger conductor
Also need to fit all the conductor in a particularradius at a given z location
Much bigger conductors have even higher current densities because of “edge” effects
1LA 1C 1RA
1RB1LB
2LA
3LA
2RA
3RA
2RB2LB
3LB 3RB 1RC1LC
2C
3C
Need to “fill” the available space at low radius
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
65
Actual conductor layout
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
66
Actual conductor layout
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
67
Blocky Model superimposed
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
68
Keep Out Zones±360°/28
cones are defined using:
nothing w/in 5σ of the multiple scattering radius + 1/4" each for Al support and W shielding
±360°/14
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
69
Keep Out Zones±360°/28
cones are defined using:
nothing w/in 5σ of the multiple scattering radius + 1/4" each for Al support and W shielding
±360°/14
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
70
Keep Out Zones±360°/28
cones are defined using:
nothing w/in 5σ of the multiple scattering radius + 1/4" each for Al support and W shielding
±360°/14
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
71
Keep Out Zones/Concept 2±360°/28
±360°/14
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
72
Interferences
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
73
Interferences
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
74
1 (2.0)8 (2.11)7 (2.10)6 (2.9)5 (2.8)4 (2.7)3 (2.6)2 (2.5)1 (2.0)
Tweaking the Optics
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
75
1 (2.0)8 (2.11)7 (2.10)6 (2.9)5 (2.8)4 (2.7)3 (2.6)2 (2.5)1 (2.0)
Tweaking the Optics
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
76
1 (2.0)8 (2.11)7 (2.10)6 (2.9)5 (2.8)4 (2.7)3 (2.6)2 (2.5)
Tweaking the Optics
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
77
1 (2.0)8 (2.11)7 (2.10)6 (2.9)5 (2.8)4 (2.7)3 (2.6)
Tweaking the Optics
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
78
1 (2.0)8 (2.11)7 (2.10)6 (2.9)5 (2.8)4 (2.7)
Tweaking the Optics
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
79
1 (2.0)8 (2.11)7 (2.10)6 (2.9)5 (2.8)
Tweaking the Optics
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
80
1 (2.0)8 (2.11)7 (2.10)6 (2.9)
Tweaking the Optics
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
81
1 (2.0)8 (2.11)7 (2.10)
Tweaking the Optics
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
82
1 (2.0)8 (2.11)
Tweaking the Optics
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
83
1 (2.0)
Tweaking the Optics
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
84
4.1
middle only (z0 =0 cm), 6.0, 11.5 and 17, phi=0 only
blue – epsred - mollers
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
85
4.2
middle only (z0 =0 cm), 6.0, 11.5 and 17, phi=0 only
blue – epsgreen - mollers
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
864.2
4.1 middle (z0 =0 cm) 6.0 to 17 mrads Tracks colored by theta from purple to red (low to high)
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
874.2
4.1
3.0
4.2
middle (z0 =0 cm) 6.0 to 17 mrads
Tracks colored by theta from purple to red (low to high)
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
88
4.3b middle only (z0 =0 cm), 6.0, 11.5 and 17, phi=0 only
blue – epsgreen - mollers
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
89
4.3b
3.0
• Meshed with no iron for comparison• Used Willy’s conceptual design for iron pieces
• Not optimized in any way• Used thin and thick pieces
• Compared fields (BMOD and BR)• Compared tracks for no iron and thick iron
Note: op3 file names are:
no_iron_in_coils_test_ver2.op3 (smaller mesh size)iron_in_coils_ver3.op3 (thin)iron_in_coils_ver4.op3 (thick)
Outline
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
91
No iron, coils only
BMODz=1375 cm
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
92
No iron w/ mesh
BMODz=1375 cm
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
93
Field on a line, middle of open sectorBMODz=1375 cm, y= 0 cm , 0 < x < -40 cm
With coils only With meshBMOD
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
94
Model body in mesh
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
95
thin iron
thick ironIron design
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
96
thick iron
1 m long, section of tube from 0.5 to 5.5 cm radiusOpening angle, thin: 5 degreesOpening angle, thick: 20 degrees
Placed radially from 5 – 20 cm between 1325 and 1425 cm in z
Iron design
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
97
Thin Iron w/ mesh
BMODz=1375 cm
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
98
Thick Iron w/ mesh
BMODz=1375 cm
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
99
Giant blocks of iron
BMODz=1375 cm
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
100
No iron w/ mesh
BMODz=1375 cm
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
101
Thin Iron w/ mesh
BMODz=1375 cm
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
102
Thick Iron w/ mesh
BMODz=1375 cm
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
103
Giant blocks of iron
BMODz=1375 cm
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
104
Vector plotsBMOD
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
105
Middle of open sector
With thin iron
With no ironBMOD
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
106
Middle of open sector
With thin iron
With thick ironWith no iron
BMOD
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
107
Edge of open sector
With thin iron
With no iron
BMOD
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
108
Edge of open sector
With thin ironWith thick iron
With no iron
BMOD
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
109
With thin iron
With no iron
Cent
er o
f op
en se
ctor
Z=1375, r = 13.5 cm
BMOD
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
110
With thin iron
With no iron
Z=1375, r = 13.5 cm
BR
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
111
With thick iron
With thin iron
Z=1375, r = 13.5 cm
BMOD
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
112
With thick iron
With thin iron
Z=1375, r = 13.5 cm
BR
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
113
With no iron
With thick iron
Z=1375, r = 16.0 cm
BMOD
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
114
With “giant” iron
With thick iron
Z=1375, r = 16.0 cm
BMOD
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
115
With thick iron
With no iron
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
116
With no iron
With giant iron
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
117
With no iron
With giant iron, BFIL 90%
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
118
With no iron
With giant iron, BFIL 80%
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
119
Magnet Advisory Group Meeting October 14, 2013
120
Summary
No optimization of the iron was done
According to this preliminary work, is 2% greater for the thick iron
1.11 T m → 1.13T m∙ ∙
Lowest tracks radial position at detector plane increased 2 cm (compared to 90 cm)
Do NOT see a dramatic increase in the quality of the focus or size of the field
Radial focus may be a little better for transition and closed sectors