Search found 1798 matches
- 01 Aug 2022, 19:50
- Forum: General
- Topic: defining my own wiggler field
- Replies: 6
- Views: 1518
Re: defining my own wiggler field
Do wait on Michael to confirm or deny, but yes to my understanding the synchrotron fields must be calculated ourselves, however the effects on a travelling bunch (particles) is modelled by Elegant. I had been looking at this for myself and for a classical wiggler I think the solution is to take the...
- 01 Aug 2022, 19:50
- Forum: General
- Topic: defining my own wiggler field
- Replies: 6
- Views: 1518
Re: defining my own wiggler field
ELEGANT is capable of simulating SASE FEL, right? Are you saying I can only obtain the effect the radiation does to the beam, but not the radiation spectrum? It can compute SASE FEL output using Ming Xie's parametrization. It is not a real simulation, just an approximate estimate. You need to use a...
- 01 Aug 2022, 19:48
- Forum: Optimization and Matching
- Topic: orbit correction for a long beam line
- Replies: 4
- Views: 3129
Re: orbit correction for a long beam line
Esmaeil, Your lattice does not close upon itself. I guess this is because of insufficient precision in converting from MAD-X to elegant format. elegant is unable to obtain a closed orbit even in the absence of errors. You can use the floor_coordinate command to compute the the floor coordinates and ...
- 01 Aug 2022, 19:36
- Forum: General
- Topic: TWPL increasing integration steps creates bizare behaviour
- Replies: 1
- Views: 1194
Re: TWPL increasing integration steps creates bizare behaviour
Seb, I'm not sure what you want to simulate, but it seems you are simulating a sine-wave excitation of the beam. TWPL is not the element I'd choose for that. It's really intended for single-pass systems such as a deflector in a transport line. For a single-pass simulation, the results are pretty con...
- 28 Jul 2022, 16:08
- Forum: General
- Topic: defining my own wiggler field
- Replies: 6
- Views: 1518
Re: defining my own wiggler field
There are several ways to define undulator/wiggler fields in elegant, starting from field maps 1. CWIGGLER accepts data defining the undulator field in terms of longitudinal and transverse harmonics. 2. BGGEXP accepts data defining the fields in terms of generalized gradient expansions. 3. BMXYZ acc...
- 27 Jul 2022, 20:15
- Forum: General
- Topic: Implementation of bunch lengthning and transverse impedance
- Replies: 10
- Views: 7455
Re: Implementation of bunch lengthning and transverse impedance
Sara,
At first blush, I guess it is because your 2-ps bin size is too large for a 6 ps rms bunch duration. Try 0.1 ps.
--Michael
At first blush, I guess it is because your 2-ps bin size is too large for a 6 ps rms bunch duration. Try 0.1 ps.
--Michael
- 27 Jul 2022, 20:06
- Forum: Optimization and Matching
- Topic: orbit correction for a long beam line
- Replies: 4
- Views: 3129
Re: orbit correction for a long beam line
Esmaeil,
Can you upload your lattice file?
--Michael
Can you upload your lattice file?
--Michael
- 27 Jul 2022, 20:03
- Forum: Ring Tracking
- Topic: Setting CWIGGLER
- Replies: 8
- Views: 3706
Re: Setting CWIGGLER
Mikhail,
By the way, I added the ability to subdivide CWIGGLER elements in the last version.
--Michael
By the way, I added the ability to subdivide CWIGGLER elements in the last version.
--Michael
- 27 Jul 2022, 19:51
- Forum: Optimization and Matching
- Topic: Correction routine doesn't appear to handle coupling between X and Y
- Replies: 5
- Views: 7118
Re: Correction routine doesn't appear to handle coupling between X and Y
Coupled trajectory correction was added about a year ago. I've attached an example of using this feature.
--Michael
--Michael
- 27 Jul 2022, 19:19
- Forum: Ring Tracking
- Topic: Setting CWIGGLER
- Replies: 8
- Views: 3706
Re: Setting CWIGGLER
Mikhail, The model has an even number of poles, but starts and ends with a half-length pole. This ensures that the dispersion returns to zero at the end. The problem with the field calculation with pole factors has to do with the number of integration steps per pole. It should be 4*n, where n is an ...