Skip to content

GitLab

  • Projects
  • Groups
  • Snippets
  • Help
    • Loading...
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
  • Sign in
S src
  • Project overview
    • Project overview
    • Details
    • Activity
    • Releases
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
    • Locked Files
  • Issues 62
    • Issues 62
    • List
    • Boards
    • Labels
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
    • Iterations
  • Merge requests 4
    • Merge requests 4
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Operations
    • Operations
    • Incidents
    • Environments
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • CI/CD
    • Code Review
    • Issue
    • Repository
    • Value Stream
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Members
    • Members
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • OPAL
  • src
  • Issues
  • #215

Closed
Open
Created Mar 21, 2018 by ganz_p@ganz_p

Dipole negative K0

When I compare (opal 1.6 and opal 1.9) the beam line of the PSI Gantry 2, I have noticed the problem, that negative K0 values of the Dipole AMF2 cause troubles (maybe in the creation of the reference trajectory). Even, an alternative Implementation with a positive K0 and a rotation (PSI) of pi doesn't solve the problem and gives the same output.

The Implementation of the dipole is:

AMF2:   SBEND, 
        K0=-0.804017,      //<--- negative magnetic field strength 
        L=1.4929, 
	ELEMEDGE=42.6615,
        FMAPFN="HardEdge.T7", 
        //PSI = Pi,         //<---- Rotate like that
        DESIGNENERGY=7.381e+01, GAP=.1;

Normal_AMF2

NOTE: Why do I think, that the negative K0 causes the problem? Because just some elements before the dipole AMF1 has precisely the same attributes, except a positive K0 and matches the with OPAL 1.6.

The complete .in are here. 70MeV_Gantry2_OPAL1.6.in & 70MeV_Gantry2_OPAL1.9.in

The Fieldmap: HardEdge.T7

If I use positive K0 values, the rms of OPAL 1.6 and OPAL 1.9 match again. Plot below (made out of .stat file made with pyOPAL Tools) positive_K0_AMF2

Does someone has an idea where this missmatch come from?

Assignee
Assign to
None
Milestone
None
Assign milestone
Time tracking