[Clas12_rgh] beam energy

[Xiangdong Wei]

The uniformity of the 5T transverse magnet was achieved with the help of 2 iron rings near the center of coils and optimized for 5T only. Therefore, reducing the operation field would probably need to design new shimming.

Agreed with Eugene, a new design of magnet may require less supporting materials.

~Xiangdong
________________________________
From: Clas12_rgh <clas12_rgh-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Volker Burkert via Clas12_rgh <clas12_rgh at jlab.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 12:15 PM
To: Axel Schmidt <schmidta at jlab.org>; Eugene Pasyuk <pasyuk at jlab.org>
Cc: Eugene Pasyuk via Clas12_rgh <clas12_rgh at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: [Clas12_rgh] beam energy


Hi Axel,



For such a large range in energy it might be better to also lower the polarizing target magnetic field with the chicane magnets and use different microwave frequencies. The prize to pay is lower polarization. In the past people have used 2.5 Tesla mag. field with still decent polarizations (50-60% for protons??) . But Chris may want to comment on this option.



Volker





From: Clas12_rgh <clas12_rgh-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Axel Schmidt via Clas12_rgh <clas12_rgh at jlab.org>
Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 at 11:52 AM
To: Eugene Pasyuk <pasyuk at jlab.org>
Cc: Eugene Pasyuk via Clas12_rgh <clas12_rgh at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: [Clas12_rgh] beam energy

Dear Eugene,

Thank you for raising this issue.



Acknowledging that the approved experiments are all designed for 5th pass beam (and that obviously takes priority), I would be very curious to know how much additional cost and effort would be needed to accommodate 4th pass, or even 3rd pass beam energies. Lower energies would probably be a lot better for measuring two-photon exchange, the physics August and I are investigating.



I realize that this would require a MUCH larger chicane bend. Would this increase the size/cost/complexity by a large factor? At what point does it become completely infeasible?



We are still in the early stages for exploring this. We'll do simulations and report to the group. But this seemed like a good moment to register this point.



Thanks,

Axel



On Aug 28, 2024, at 11:03, Eugene Pasyuk via Clas12_rgh <clas12_rgh at jlab.org> wrote:



Hello RGH enthusiasts,



While thinking of the chicane design, it occurred to me that, so far, in all our simulations, we have considered beam energy of 11 GeV. 11 GeV may not be available. Since the target magnet field is fixed to be 5 T, we will have more bending for lower beam energies. It has two consequences: more background in the forward detector and a larger offset of the middle chicane magnets. The latter means we would need a wider opening of the chicane magnets. The maximum opening for the existing design that produces enough BdL needs to be checked with the company. It may require a substantial redesign of the magnet compared to the existing version they built for someone.

We should define the minimum acceptable beam energy for this experiment and run simulations with this condition.



-Eugene





_______________________________________________
Clas12_rgh mailing list
Clas12_rgh at jlab.org<mailto:Clas12_rgh at jlab.org>
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgh


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clas12_rgh/attachments/20240828/066c68c3/attachment-0001.html>