1 / 21

EMMA Magnet

EMMA Magnet. Neil Marks ASTeC Cockcroft Institute ‘All-hands’ meeting; 29 March 2007. Acknowledgements:. With considerable thanks to: Ben Shepherd; Take Yokoi (Adams Institute); Neil Bliss; Clive Hill,

badru
Download Presentation

EMMA Magnet

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. EMMA Magnet Neil Marks ASTeC Cockcroft Institute ‘All-hands’ meeting; 29 March 2007

  2. Acknowledgements: With considerable thanks to: Ben Shepherd; Take Yokoi (Adams Institute); Neil Bliss; Clive Hill, (who have done most of the work and produced most of the material that you are about to see).

  3. The EMMA Ring

  4. Early plan view of magnets in EMMA lattice

  5. EMMA Magnets – ‘Unusual Features’ • magnets provide both dipole (bending) and quadrupole (focusing) field – they are ‘combined function’ magnets; • the quadrupole field is far stronger than the dipole field – they are therefore displaced quadrupoles; • independent adjustment of the dipole and quadrupole field is required; • they are very short – yoke lengths of 55mm and 65mm – of the same order as the inscribed radius – ‘all ends and no middle’.

  6. EMMA ‘F type’ Magnet

  7. EMMA ‘D type’ Magnet

  8. Current Magnet Parameters.

  9. EMMA Cells in 3D

  10. Modelling carried out with CST EM Studio (3D code) F magnet D magnet now with ‘realistic’ steel –details provided by Tesla Combined model http://www.cst.com/

  11. Difference between separate and combined models.

  12. Field Clamps • Tracking studies suggest that field clamps are needed • Reduce the amount of field leaking into the long straight • Symmetric or asymmetric? • Occupy space and increase power demand

  13. Field Clamps • Integral gradient reduced by 11% (F); 18% (D) • Little effect on good gradient region • No saturation in the clamp plate

  14. Field Clamps Field at clamp reduced by ~80% in each case F magnet D magnet Difference between asymmetric and symmetric windows is negligible

  15. Optimisation of gradient quality -tangent point variation QBD – tangent point 10mm tangent point 48mm

  16. Investigation of field quality in 2D in QF, tangent at 45 mm (OPERA 2D).

  17. Results as Dg(x)/g(0) for QF, tangent at 45mm.

  18. size of chamfer 10mm chamfer No chamfer Optimisation of integrated gradient quality- variation of chamfer on pole ends Angle can be adjusted to – 45° used up to now

  19. Modelling in 3D using OPERA

  20. Variation of g(x).ds in QF between different limits – tangent at 11 mm, no chamfer.

  21. Further Work • proceed with tender exercise for 2 prototypes; • continue with 3D work using both OPERA 3D and CST EM Studio; • proceed with detailed 3 D measurements of prototypes on delivery.

More Related