[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re:

To: Guangliang Yang <y.guangliang@physics.gla.ac.uk>
Subject: Re:
From: Jim Stewart <jstewart@jlab.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:19:24 -0400
CC: halld-tagger@jlab.org
In-Reply-To: <03ae01c8a563$9eb02b30$372dd182@physics.gla.ac.uk>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0804180850550.31420@jlabl1.jlab.org> <03ae01c8a563$9eb02b30$372dd182@physics.gla.ac.uk>
Reply-To: Jim Stewart <jstewart@jlab.org>
Sender: owner-halld-tagger@jlab.org
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)

Dear Yang

Based on the replies from the magnet manufacturers I see no strong 
reason to manufacturer
two small magnets. What steps need to be done to change the design for 
one large magnet?

Jim

Follow-Ups:
- Re:
  - From: "Guangliang Yang" <y.guangliang@physics.gla.ac.uk>

References:
- No Subject
  - From: Jim Stewart <jstewart@jlab.org>
- Re:
  - From: "Guangliang Yang" <y.guangliang@physics.gla.ac.uk>

Prev by Date: Re: pair spectrometer comments/questions
Next by Date: Re:
Prev by thread: Re:
Next by thread: Re:
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread