This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
group_5 [2018/09/13 16:14] flowerdew |
group_5 [2018/09/14 09:13] (current) surbrook |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
{{group5_screen_shot_2018-09-10_at_15.03.08.png }} | {{group5_screen_shot_2018-09-10_at_15.03.08.png }} | ||
+ | |||
Question 4: | Question 4: | ||
* Used website to calculate θ< | * Used website to calculate θ< | ||
- | ** Opening angle = 10 mrad which is less than the θ< | + | ** Opening angle = 0.59 deg = 10 mrad which is less than the θ< |
- | ** ΔE/E = ~2% which is less than the 3.1% threshold so this also works.\\ | + | ** ΔE/E = (12.083-11.593)/ |
+ | |||
+ | {{: | ||
Question 5: | Question 5: | ||
- | * < | + | |
+ | | ||
Question 6: | Question 6: | ||
Line 26: | Line 32: | ||
* 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 around | + | * Calculated emittance is about 0.3 mm mrad, which is 50% larger than the ' |
{{emittanceexample7.png}} | {{emittanceexample7.png}} | ||
+ | |||
Question 7: | Question 7: | ||
Line 42: | Line 49: | ||
{{Group5_screen_shot_2018-09-13_at_15.48.23.png }} | {{Group5_screen_shot_2018-09-13_at_15.48.23.png }} | ||
- | * This optimisation improved the mass resolution from 640.86349 to 724.5905, while still focusing. | + | * This optimisation improved the mass resolution from 640.86349 to 724.66207, while still focusing. |
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Question 8: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Tolerance for the beam size was found to be 0.00075 +/- 0.00004 m | ||
+ | * Tolerance for the beam position was found to be +/- 0.007 m | ||