[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: tagger field map
Dear Sascha,
I got the same result, dz=19.6cm.
Cheers
Yang
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Somov" <somov@jlab.org>
To: "Elke-Caroline Aschenauer" <elke@jlab.org>
Cc: "Tim Whitlatch" <whitey@jlab.org>; "Guangliang Yang"
<y.guangliang@physics.gla.ac.uk>; <halld-tagger@jlab.org>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: tagger field map
> Hello Elke,
>
> Ok, thanks, I also think that it's the simplest dicision.
>
> Yang, could you double check the shift (just to be consistent);
> I estimated it to be dz = ~19.6 cm.
>
> Cheers,
> Sascha
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Elke-Caroline Aschenauer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Alexander Somov wrote:
>>
>> Dear Sascha,
>>
>> as Tim already pointed out, we shift our things.
>> the tagger magnet and if needed also the quad. This is easiest because it
>> does not involve any other parties like the machine group. And there is
>> enough space in the tagger hall to do that, so please take this mail as a
>> decission.
>>
>> thanks elke
>>
>>
>>
>>> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:24:57 -0500 (EST)
>>> From: Alexander Somov <somov@jlab.org>
>>> To: Tim Whitlatch <whitey@jlab.org>
>>> Cc: Guangliang Yang <y.guangliang@physics.gla.ac.uk>,
>>> halld-tagger@jlab.org
>>> Subject: Re: tagger field map
>>>
>>>
>>> Good morning,
>>>
>>> Yang thanks for the information.
>>>
>>> The question is should we shift the magnets or the
>>> electron beam pipe which goes to the dump (downstream
>>> by 19.6 cm)?
>>>
>>> Should we shift the quadrupole magnet as well (or one can
>>> simply change the quadrupole's field) ?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Sascha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Tim Whitlatch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good morning all,
>>>>
>>>> We do not wish to change the Tagger hall. Is there an exact number that
>>>> we
>>>> should shift the magnet by? Or is 20cm fine?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>> Guangliang Yang wrote:
>>>>> Dear Sascha,
>>>>>
>>>>> The number in table 4.2 was calculated for the two dipole tagger.
>>>>> It is
>>>>> not correct for the single magnet tagger. If we don't want to change
>>>>> the
>>>>> tagger hall design, we should shift the tagger downstream by ~20 cm.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> Yang
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Somov" <somov@jlab.org>
>>>>> To: "Richard Jones" <richard.t.jones@uconn.edu>
>>>>> Cc: <halld-tagger@jlab.org>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 3:53 PM
>>>>> Subject: tagger field map
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Richard,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The magnetic field map in the tagger hall seems
>>>>>> to be shifted by a few cm in the MC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to the table 4.2 in the technical design
>>>>>> report (updated for the review), the position of
>>>>>> 12 GeV electrons at z=26.301 m should be x = -4.7576 m.
>>>>>> However, I get x = -4.803 m, see the plot attached.
>>>>>> Are the numbers in the table 4.2 correct ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I used the same reconstruction code as before but just
>>>>>> replaced the magnetic field map (do I need to shift the
>>>>>> map ?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you please check. I want to finish with updating
>>>>>> geometry asap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Sascha
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S. The full-energy deflection angle in the magnet is
>>>>>> correct, 13.4 deg.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ( `,_' )+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=
>> ) `\ -
>> / '. | +
>> | `, Elke-Caroline Aschenauer =
>> \,_ `-/ -
>> ,&&&&&V Jefferson Lab +
>> ,&&&&&&&&: HALL-D 12C / F381 121-A Atlantic Avenue =
>> ,&&&&&&&&&&; Suite 8 Hampton, VA 23664 -
>> | |&&&&&&&;\ 12000 Jefferson Ave +
>> | | :_) _ Newport News, VA 23606 Tel.: 001-757-224-1216 =
>> | | ;--' | Mail: elke@jlab.org Mobil: 001-757-256-5224 -
>> '--' `-.--. | +
>> \_ | |---' Tel.: 001-757-269-5352 =
>> `-._\__/ Fax.: 001-757-269-6331 -
>> +=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+
>>
>>
>
>