[FFA_CEBAF_Collab] [EXTERNAL] Re: Two-aperture magnet

[Brooks, Stephen]

It won't be symmetric because I want to put e- and e+ side-by-side.  The e+ field and gradient will be the negative of the e-, but the X-axis will _not_ be reflected, because it matters what is the inside and outside of the radius of the arc.

So in fact, these magnets are by definition quite asymmetric.  You can see the green goal field lines on the plot.

     -Stephen

________________________________________
From: FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Berg, J Scott via FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab at jlab.org>
Sent: 21 March 2022 09:29
To: ffa_cebaf_collab at jlab.org
Subject: [FFA_CEBAF_Collab] [EXTERNAL] RE: Two-aperture magnet

Hi Stephen,

I'd expect the solution to be symmetric; does it get worse if you try to enforce symmetry?

-Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab-bounces at jlab.org> On Behalf Of
> Brooks, Stephen via FFA_CEBAF_Collab
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 3:38 PM
> To: ffa_cebaf_collab at jlab.org
> Subject: [FFA_CEBAF_Collab] [EXTERNAL] Two-aperture magnet
>
> I can find some sort of solution for a two-aperture magnet for both
> electrons and positrons.
>
> It only takes 1.81x the material of two separate magnets, so it's not
> quite as bad as having four FFAs instead of two.
>
> There's a 6mm wide gap in the middle for mechanical supports for the
> vacuum chamber.  It sounds like we'd share the chamber between electrons
> and positrons, which might save some money BUT the vacuum chamber will
> collapse if we make it wider.  So, there is now room to put metal tabs in
> the middle on the top and bottom of the chamber, with threaded holes, so
> you support it with a bolts through to the top and bottom of the magnet.
>
>      -Stephen


_______________________________________________
FFA_CEBAF_Collab mailing list
FFA_CEBAF_Collab at jlab.org
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/ffa_cebaf_collab