From: Carl Gagliardi <cggroup@comp.tamu.edu>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 11:07:49 -0600
To: Nate Rodning <Nathan.Rodning@ualberta.ca>, Donald Koetke <Donald.Koetke@valpo.edu>
Cc: e614-align@relay.phys.ualberta.ca, e614-s3@relay.phys.ualberta.ca
Subject: Re: residual field
Nate and Don:
I don't think we need a lot of fancy Monte Carlo to estimate the residual
field we can tolerate. In fact, I think a calculator and some common sense
will suffice (at least up to a factor of 2 or so). Here is my attempt:
To estimate what we can tolerate, remember that, in addition to
straight-through beam particles at momenta up to ~120 MeV/c, the alignment
studies will include "straight" positron tracks from Michel decays. The
latter will be a far more stringent constraint, especially since we want
them to be "straight" even at relatively low energy. So, for a figure of
merit, consider a positron with a pT of 10 MeV/c. At 100 G, this will have
a radius of curvature of 334 cm. If I did my arithmetic correctly, such a
positron, if it has a total energy of 50 MeV, will deflect 1.6 mm over a
longitudinal distance of 50 cm. A 14 MeV positron with the same pT would
deflect 5 times this much.
Clearly this is too much to tolerate. In fact, these calculations indicate
that even 10 G is probably too much to treat as precisely straight, given
the chamber resolution, but at least it's in the ballpark.
My conclusion: Nate's 2 G "reach and grab" number isn't crazy. (!?!) We
might be able to tolerate twice that, but not five times. Thus, my own
original reach and grab guess -- 10 G -- was too high.
Carl
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Carl A. Gagliardi |
| Cyclotron Institute Phone: (979) 845-1411 |
| Texas A&M University FAX: (979) 845-1899 |
| College Station, Texas 77843 E-mail: cggroup@comp.tamu.edu |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Re: residual field / Carl Gagliardi
- Created for the The Center for Subatomic Research E614 Project Projects Page.
- Created by The CoCoBoard.