MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2189103058

USING RADIA TO MODEL SUPERCONDUCTING WIGGLERS AT THE CANADIAN LIGHT SOURCE

2012· article· en· W2189103058 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cameron Baribeau, Les Dallin, Michael Sigrist, Ward Wurtz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron Lasers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWigglerYoke (aeronautics)PhysicsFEKOSuperconducting Super ColliderOpticsCore (optical fiber)Beam (structure)MyrinetComputational physicsParticle acceleratorElectrical engineeringEngineeringNuclear physicsMechanicsComputer scienceCathode rayAntenna (radio)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Light Source (CLS) operates two superconducting wigglers (SCW): a 2 Tesla, 63 pole wiggler, and a 4 Tesla, 27 pole wiggler. Both SCWs have a negative impact on the facility’s injection efficiency. Beam based measurements indicate a larger than expected sextupole moment, and the 4T wiggler produces a horizontal tune shift. To better understand these effects, computer models were developed for the SCWs using the magnetic modeling software package, RADIA [1]. The RADIA models accurately predict the wiggler on-axis field strength and vertical tune shift. By introducing physical misalignments, the models can also produce sextupole moments on the same order of magnitude as the measured quantities. However, the modeled horizontal tune shift is orders of magnitude smaller than the 4T wiggler’s observed tune shift. Various model parameters were investigated for their effect on horizontal tune shift, but the cause of the 4T wiggler’s horizontal tune shift remains unknown. MODEL CONSTRUCTION Overview The RADIA model was built according to the design drawings represented in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. As indicated, the pole model can be considered as three main components: the core, the yoke, and the coils. The core is the lowermost section of an ARMCO-iron yoke and is partly enclosed by the current-carrying coils. The yoke returns magnetic flux and supports the coils. Figure 1: 2T SCW pole, side view. For the purpose of orientation and alignment, special pins with rounded heads are molded into the cores. In order to include these pin cavities in the model, the core is modeled in upper and lower sections, as shown in Fig. 3. Figure 2: 2T SCW cores and coils, bottom view. Figure 3: Three half-cores modeled in RADIA. The SCW’s superconducting coil is modeled as uniform current-carrying racetracks. Coil design differs slightly between the two SCWs; while the central poles of the 4T device each have two separately powered windings (see Fig. 4), the 2T device only has one coil per core. Figure 4: 4T SCW’s dual coil winding. Proceedings of IPAC2012, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA MOPPP061 02 Synchrotron Light Sources and FELs T15 Undulators and Wigglers ISBN 978-3-95450-115-1 699 C op yr ig ht c ○ 20 12 by IE E E – cc C re at iv e C om m on sA tt ri bu tio n 3. 0 (C C B Y 3. 0) — cc C re at iv e C om m on sA tt ri bu tio n 3. 0 (C C B Y 3. 0) Figure 5 shows the cores, yoke, and current-carrying coils combined to form a model SCW with six poles. Figure 5: Six pole SCW model in RADIA. Summary of Assumptions and Approximations Construction of the RADIA models made use of the following approximations:  Modeled superconducting current windings as uniform current-carrying racetracks.  Approximated pin cavity’s cylindrical shape.  Approximated core’s rounded edge.  Ignored stainless steel structural components.  Manufacturer (Budker) design reports describe core and yoke’s material as ARMCO-iron, the magnetic properties of which we do not know in detail. The RADIA model uses the built-in material RadMatXc06, which is “an inexpensive low carbon steel with C<0.06%”.  Ignored vacuum chamber. MODEL PERFORMANCE Field Strength The initial benchmark for the RADIA models was ramp tables, which were supplied by the device manufacturer and later refined by CLS; these tables map power supply current to the device’s peak field. As shown in Fig. 6, the models and ramp tables agree very well for fields above 1T. Results diverge for lower field strengths, but there is no foreseeable reason to use the model (or the devices) at such fields. Integrated Sextupole Moment Measurements of the 2T and 4T SCWs show sextupole terms of -670 ± 230 G/cm and -680 ± 120 G/cm, respectively [2]. RADIA models containing no misalignments do not produce sextupole moments of this order; the 2T SCW model predicts 50 G/cm, and the 4T SCW model predicts 215 G/cm. 70

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron LasersFrench-language works237,207