This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
group_5 [2018/09/11 15:48] surbrook |
group_5 [2018/09/13 16:14] flowerdew |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
* Using 'WRITE 6 VMAX(RAY(1))' | * Using 'WRITE 6 VMAX(RAY(1))' | ||
* Plotting COSY beam size (x) and the quadrupole field strength(divided by aperture radius) and arrived at the graph below. Data doesn' | * Plotting COSY beam size (x) and the quadrupole field strength(divided by aperture radius) and arrived at the graph below. Data doesn' | ||
- | * Calculated emittance is nearly 1000x larger than initial, | + | * Calculated emittance is around 50% larger than the ' |
+ | |||
+ | {{emittanceexample7.png}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | Question 7: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Effective field length of Q2 was increased by 3% and the drift lengths either side were adjusted accordingly, | ||
+ | * The mass resolution was then optimised by minimising the function OBJ := 1/ | ||
+ | * This would increase the mass resolution to values of up to 85,000, however the emittance was very large. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{Group5_screen_shot_2018-09-13_at_16.02.21.png }} | ||
+ | |||
+ | * We realised that we should alter our objective function, in order to re focus our beam. This was achieved with the function OBJ := 1/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{Group5_screen_shot_2018-09-13_at_15.48.23.png }} | ||
+ | |||
+ | * This optimisation improved the mass resolution | ||
- | {{:: |