M AGNETIC F IELD M APPING V. Blackmore CM37 November 7 th, 2013 1/21.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Errors and Horizontal distance measurement
Advertisements

UpstreamDownstream S PECIFYING A MAGNET Key: A coil Position of upstream edge Inner radius Current in coil Conductor This is a generic magnet, it’s not.
AIR NAVIGATION Part 3 The 1 in 60 rule.
Lab #2: Magnetic Fields due to Currents Learn how to measure magnetic fields Verify biot-savart law/Ampere’s Law by comparing prediction and measurement.
Section 4.2 Fitting Curves and Surfaces by Least Squares.
A Brief Description of the Crystallographic Experiment
October 12, 2006 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLS Undulator Good Field Region and Tuning Strategy 1 Undulator Good Field Region and.
Zachary Wolf Undulator Tuning June 17, 2008 Undulator Tuning Status Z. Wolf, S. Anderson, R. Colon, S. Jansson, S.Kaplunenko,
1 PID status MICE Analysis phone conference Rikard Sandström.
1 G4MICE studies of PID transverse acceptance MICE video conference Rikard Sandström.
Isaac Vasserman Magnetic Measurements and Tuning 10/14/ I. Vasserman LCLS Magnetic Measurements and Tuning.
Bureaucracy Did everybody get the detailed comments on their first lab report from ELMS? Lab 1 resubmit due 26 Nov Bring paper copy of lab report for today’s.
Physics and Measurements.
Lab #2: Magnetic Fields due to Currents
Solenoid Magnetic Field Measurement. MICE solenoid includes 5 coils First solenoid expected at FNAL for magnetic field measurements in April Measurements.
Zachary Wolf LCLS Undulator October 30, LCLS Undulator Tuning And Fiducialization Zack Wolf, Yurii Levashov, Achim.
Update Hardware for conductive cooling of the quench resistors has been fabricated at LBNL. Preparation for installation to start this week. Installation.
(FEA) Analysis P J Smith University of Sheffield 27 th November 2008.
A U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Laboratory Operated by The University of Chicago Argonne National Laboratory Office of Science U.S. Department.
Zachary Wolf Undulator Oct 12, LCLS Undulator Tuning Zack Wolf, Yurii Levashov, Achim Weidemann, Seva Kaplounenko,
Solenoid Magnetic Field Mapping Paul S Miyagawa University of Manchester Objectives Mapper machine Mapper software Simulation Corrections Fitting Future.
Solenoid Magnetic Field Mapping Paul S Miyagawa University of Manchester Introduction Mapper machine Mapper software - Simulation - Corrections - Fitting.
MICE magnetic measurements Sequence of events and MICE hall movements Alain Blondel – 10-April 2012 revision from 13 December 2012.
DELTA Quadrant Tuning Y. Levashov, E. Reese. 2 Tolerances for prototype quadrant tuning Magnet center deviations from a nominal center line < ± 50  m.
ATLAS: SCT detector alignment and B field map. Steve Snow New Year 2005 This title describes work that has been growing from low priority at the start.
Chapter 6.7 Determinants. In this chapter all matrices are square; for example: 1x1 (what is a 1x1 matrix, in fact?), 2x2, 3x3 Our goal is to introduce.
Offline Data Analysis Software Steve Snow, Paul S Miyagawa (University of Manchester) John Hart (Rutherford Appleton Laboratory) Objectives + requirements.
Offline Data Analysis Software Steve Snow, Paul S Miyagawa (University of Manchester) John Hart (Rutherford Appleton Laboratory) Objectives + requirements.
23 July 2012D. Sober1 Some thoughts on Hall D tagger magnet field mapping D. Sober Catholic University of America GlueX Beam/Tagger biweekly meeting 23.
PHYS 20 LESSONS: INTRO Lesson 1: Intro to CH Physics Measurement.
ATLAS Inner Detector Magnetic Field I am responsible for providing the magnetic field map for the ATLAS Inner Detector.  6m long x 2m diameter cylindrical.
Does this point lie on this line? The Point-Slope format (y – y 1 ) = m(x – x 1 )
Let’s review for the final! No points, just review.
Simulations of the double funnel construction for LET. Comparison with a single funnel The aim was to optimise the double funnel configuration to give.
Analysing Lunar Craters using data from the Liverpool Telescope.
Some Thoughts on Magnetic Measurements for MICE Michael A. Green Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Berkeley CA 94720, USA.
MICE magnetic measurements: AFC considerations Alain Blondel see a previous discussion for reference in CM35 (Feb 2013 slides by V. Blackmore, A. Blondel.
Magnet Measurement for the Hall A Compton Dipole Ken Baggett
COBRA Magnet Status W. Ootani June 27th, 2006 MEG Review W. Ootani June 27th, 2006 MEG Review.
MICE PID size &scraping MICE CM16, RAL, Oct V. Palladino, Univ & INFN Napoli for R. Sandrstrom and others contributing to this effort Yagmur, Holger,
CSC321 Introduction to Neural Networks and Machine Learning Lecture 3: Learning in multi-layer networks Geoffrey Hinton.
FC1 M AGNETIC M APPING V. Blackmore CM39 25 th June, /13.
 In this packet we will look at:  The meaning of acceleration  How acceleration is related to velocity and time  2 distinct types acceleration  A.
RICH1 Gas Enclosure Installation. Experimental Area Meeting at CERN on 21st June 2006 Bill Cameron (Imperial College London) on behalf of the RICH1 team.
G.Barber Mice Tracker Integration Harbin Jan Mice Tracker Integration Installation requirements & Procedure.
1 M. Sullivan IR update IR Update M. Sullivan for the 3 rd SuperB workshop SLAC June14-16, 2006.
Mapping the Magnetic Field of the ATLAS Solenoid Paul S Miyagawa University of Manchester ATLAS experiment + solenoid Objectives Field mapping machine.
Improve Accuracy with Software: S 0 Calibration. Calibrating the System Plot Draw the best straight line fit for the above function –You can find the.
VERY PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF MAGNET AXES OF USS – FC – DSS 26 March 2015 V. Blackmore & J. Cobb Everything that follows must be regarded as very preliminary.
Spectrometer Solenoid Field Mapping: Thoughts on Mapping Analysis & Results Major caveat: Everything in this talk is highly preliminary Data arrived on.
Physics requirements  mapping spec’s Strategy: analyze measurements to get field Mapping plan: where/how to map Engineering design: sensor, fixtures,
Physics Requirements Sensitivity to Manufacturing Imperfections Strategy  where to map field  measure deviation from ideal model  fit to error tables.
CERN –GSI/CEA MM preparation meeting, Magnetic Measurements WP.
FIELD MAPPING V. Blackmore CM38 23rd February /70.
FC Status CM39 1/20 June 2014 OXFORDRALDARESBURY V. BlackmoreV. BaylissT. Hartnett J. CobbT. BradshawS. Griffiths W. LauM. CourtholdI. Mullacrane R. PreeceA.
MAGNET MAPPING J. Cobb V. Blackmore (not responsible for the content of this talk) 27 September 2017.
Momentum and Momentum Spread Measurements
Motivation We would like to be able to scale the SHMS Golden Tune we determine this Fall from 2.2 GeV/c to other momenta with linearity errors less than.
Outcome of the Review and Response to Recommendations
Magnetic Field Mapping
Why do we need to know the fields / map the magnets?
Spectrometer Solenoid Fabrication Status and Schedule
Validating Magnets Using Beam
Effect of Reduced Focus Coil Current on Step IV and Step VI
LCLS Undulator Fiducialization
How to turn on MICE Step IV
MDL0L02 Dipole Field July 6, 2016.
Today (2/23/16) Learning objectives:
Mean Deviation Standard Deviation Variance.
Presentation transcript:

M AGNETIC F IELD M APPING V. Blackmore CM37 November 7 th, /21

SS Mapping Checklist Garbage check! Survey adjustments Linearity of field with current With and without the Virostek plate Residual magnetic field With and without the Virostek plate Hysteresis Should only occur with the Virostek plate Magnetic axis/coil fits 2/21

Mapped Currents Mode Solenoid Flip Runs cover the above currents, plus: 0A measurements (residual field) 30A individual coil measurements (superposition) With and without Virostek plate A lot of data 3/21

Surveys Mapper position measured as it moves through the SS Does move and is not completely flat Shims under the carriage will improve this for next data set Surveyed twice, with and without shielding plate SS fiducials did not move when the shielding plate was installed, but the mapper was nudged (so resurvey) No survey when shielding plate was removed (mapper not nudged) 4/21

Surveys DirectionGradientIntercept Down  Upstream Up  Downstream /21

Surveys 6/21

Surveys Nominal probe position 7/21

Surveys Nominal probe position 8/21

What next? Types of Fit 1.Minimise all coil parameters and find the best fit a)20 parameters for SS! b)See the next tale for why this is not preferred 2.“Mixing/scaling” fit a)Take two models and mix/scale for best fit b)Preferred method! 3.Both require Fourier-Bessel a)Residual field fit, gets us to desired accuracy b)Difficult 9/21

A S LIGHT D IVERSION... Once upon a time, in a land very much nearby, there lived a Friendly Creature. Though the Friendly Creature was very, very friendly, it was also very sad. No matter how hard it tried, it always had the nagging dread that it was letting other people down. One day, after supping on it’s regular meal of cold, noble soup, it resolved to try and achieve its dreams one last time. If it could prove itself other Friendly Creatures would follow! The Friendly Creature’s friends gathered around it and watched it with some trepidation. It had wrapped itself in dials and gauges, determined to prove that it could achieve its lofty goal. Bit by bit, the dials crept up. Slowly, so slowly, the Friendly Creature stalked forward. For the briefest of moments it achieved enlightenment. It had done it, it was there! But in that lucid moment it realised it had no-one to please other than itself and it no longer cared so much about its goal. What will be will be, it was what it was, and all it really wanted was to sleep. 10/21

Unexpected Behaviour... Rough field measurements taken whilst ramping Definite non-linear behaviour Strange! (But not unexplainable...) 11/21

Unexpected Behaviour... Rough field measurements taken whilst ramping Definite non-linear behaviour Strange! (But not unexplainable...) Took more data! I (A) B (kG) Thanks to V. Bayliss & S. Watson, I. Taylor & C. Pidcott 12/21

“Weirdness” Theory #1 Perhaps that field takes time to “settle” Continuous ramping  field has to play catch-up Recorded field every second and compared to ramp time in Archiver Field “settles” very quickly Not the origin of the non- linear field 13/21

“Weirdness” Theory #1 Perhaps that field takes time to “settle” Continuous ramping  field has to play catch-up Recorded field every second and compared to ramp time in Archiver Field “settles” very quickly Not the origin of the non- linear field 14/21

“Weirdness” Theory #2 Is the Hall probe non-linear? No iron, so field should be linear. “Off-axis” measurements at 50, 100, 150A 2*50A, 0.5*150A should equal the 100A measurements 15/21

“Weirdness” Fact #2 Is the Hall probe non-linear? Calibration magnet/doorstop, ~0.5T measured exactly be probe Compare 50A measurements to 100, 150A Should get a straight line, but it deviates  Hall probe in non-linear region! 16/21

“Weirdness” Fact #2 Is the Hall probe non-linear? Calibration magnet/doorstop, ~0.5T measured exactly be probe Can we trust the 50A measurements? Compare to “as built” calculation  compatible within errors 17/21

50A Field Fits Assume probe is ~10—15mm off-axis Start with the drawings for coil dimensions and separation 18/21

50A Field Fits Assume probe is ~10—15mm off-axis Start with the drawings for coil dimensions and separation Half Separation (mm)Current (A)Probe Radius (mm) Nominal ~ D fit~94.5~50.0~ 22 19/21

50A Field Fits Assume probe is ~10—15mm off-axis Start with the drawings for coil dimensions and separation 2D fits show how complicated life is for just two coils! Half Separation (mm)Current (A)Probe Radius (mm) Nominal ~10—15 2D fit~93—94~50.0—50.5~ 35 20/21

Summary SS field mapping analysis initiated, but not yet complete FC field maps highlight the dangers of 20-parameter fits! Simple set of measurements (though off-axis) Difficult to pin down sources of uncertainty Will do it better for FC2! Finally, you can do some fairly useful measurements with a “Hall probe on a stick”! 21/21