LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for ILC-BDS Archives


ILC-BDS Archives

ILC-BDS Archives


ILC-BDS@LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ILC-BDS Home

ILC-BDS Home

ILC-BDS  April 2015

ILC-BDS April 2015

Subject:

Re: Comment for IP beam size optimization with octupoles

From:

Edu Marin <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

ILC Beam Delivery System Working Group Discussions and Announcements <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 6 Apr 2015 09:51:49 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (59 lines)

Dear Okugi-san,

Thank you for your comments about IP beam size tuning.

When comparing your results obtained when assuming the set of error used 
in mine, I am surprised that you do not need the octupole magnet. 
Actually even if I perfectly removed all 2nd order aberrations I do 
still have a significant contribution to Y-beam size growth due to U3222.
In order to understand this issue, I wonder if in your lattice design 
process you use the FD octupole magnets.
In my designed lattice for Ecm=500GeV I make use of the FD octupole 
magnets to reach the TDR beam sizes, maybe these octupoles introduce the 
mentioned aberration.

Also regarding the errors, do you include errors from the movers (2um) 
in your simulation?

Thanks much,
Edu


On 04/06/2015 02:05 AM, Okugi, Toshiyuki wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Since I could not connect the BDS meeting (3/30) well by my network problem,
> I will make a comment for the IP beam size optimization with octupoles.
>
> When we use the higher order multipole fields to focus the beam core,
> the tail particles will be spray and it makes the collimation depth small in generally.
> Therefore, it is better to focus the beam with lower order correction, if possible,
> and we can focus the beam only with sextupoles for ILC FFS (see attached file).
>
> Furthermore, when we assumed the errors in the beamline,
> the beam size growth is not only for vertical direction, but also horizontal.
> Since the horizontal IP profile is asymmetric shape, the correction with octupoles is not effective.
>
> Therefore, I think we had better to optimize the IP beam size without octupoles,
> and the octupole should be used for the tail folding.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Toshiyuki OKUGI, KEK
>
>
>
>
>
> ########################################################################
> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
>
> To unsubscribe from the ILC-BDS list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=ILC-BDS&A=1

########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the ILC-BDS list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=ILC-BDS&A=1

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2016
October 2015
September 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager

Privacy Notice, Security Notice and Terms of Use