Re: Can elegant perform dynamic Aperture optimization ?
Posted: 22 Apr 2010, 16:53
Hi Weiming Guo,
Thanks for your example. In the example, you are using dnux/dp and dnuy/dp to target the desired chromaticity. I am just curious why you don't use the linear chromaticity driving terms h11001 and h00111? I noticed that in the twiss parameter output file, the driving terms h11001 and h0011 are not close to zero even though the dnux/dp and dnuy/dp are already corrected to zero. My understanding is that those driving terms are related to the linear chromaticity by a pi factor, i.e. dnux/dp = h11001/pi. Here is the partial ouput of the twiss parameter file :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step = 0 nux (1/(2$gp$r)) = 2.145948e+01 dnux/dp (1/(2$gp$r)) = 1.165833e-01
dnux/dp2 (1/(2$gp$r)) = -2.433317e+02 dnux/dp3 (1/(2$gp$r)) = -9.040604e+03 Ax (m) = 0.000000e+00
nuy (1/(2$gp$r)) = 8.196170e+00 dnuy/dp (1/(2$gp$r)) = -5.312905e-01 dnuy/dp2 (1/(2$gp$r)) = -2.594767e+02
dnuy/dp3 (1/(2$gp$r)) = 1.617910e+03 Ay (m) = 0.000000e+00 deltaHalfRange = 0.000000e+00
h11001 = 2.719532e+01 h00111 = 2.444541e+01 h20001 = 5.295725e-01
h00201 = 2.676596e+00 h10002 (1/m$a1/2$n) = 5.098531e-01 h21000 (1/m$a1/2$n) = 3.118103e+01
h30000 (1/m$a1/2$n) = 1.152045e+01 h10110 (1/m$a1/2$n) = 6.389664e+01 h10020 (1/m$a1/2$n) = 2.782511e+00
h10200 (1/m) = 9.747550e+00 h22000 (1/m) = 4.764831e+01 h11110 (1/m) = 2.478521e+02
h00220 (1/m) = 2.567794e+02 h31000 (1/m) = 1.122561e+01 h40000 (1/m) = 5.612807e+00
h20110 (1/m) = 8.477368e+01 h11200 (1/m) = 2.769764e+01 h20020 (1/m) = 1.117740e+01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are those driving terms not precisely calculated in elegant? Thanks!
csun
Thanks for your example. In the example, you are using dnux/dp and dnuy/dp to target the desired chromaticity. I am just curious why you don't use the linear chromaticity driving terms h11001 and h00111? I noticed that in the twiss parameter output file, the driving terms h11001 and h0011 are not close to zero even though the dnux/dp and dnuy/dp are already corrected to zero. My understanding is that those driving terms are related to the linear chromaticity by a pi factor, i.e. dnux/dp = h11001/pi. Here is the partial ouput of the twiss parameter file :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step = 0 nux (1/(2$gp$r)) = 2.145948e+01 dnux/dp (1/(2$gp$r)) = 1.165833e-01
dnux/dp2 (1/(2$gp$r)) = -2.433317e+02 dnux/dp3 (1/(2$gp$r)) = -9.040604e+03 Ax (m) = 0.000000e+00
nuy (1/(2$gp$r)) = 8.196170e+00 dnuy/dp (1/(2$gp$r)) = -5.312905e-01 dnuy/dp2 (1/(2$gp$r)) = -2.594767e+02
dnuy/dp3 (1/(2$gp$r)) = 1.617910e+03 Ay (m) = 0.000000e+00 deltaHalfRange = 0.000000e+00
h11001 = 2.719532e+01 h00111 = 2.444541e+01 h20001 = 5.295725e-01
h00201 = 2.676596e+00 h10002 (1/m$a1/2$n) = 5.098531e-01 h21000 (1/m$a1/2$n) = 3.118103e+01
h30000 (1/m$a1/2$n) = 1.152045e+01 h10110 (1/m$a1/2$n) = 6.389664e+01 h10020 (1/m$a1/2$n) = 2.782511e+00
h10200 (1/m) = 9.747550e+00 h22000 (1/m) = 4.764831e+01 h11110 (1/m) = 2.478521e+02
h00220 (1/m) = 2.567794e+02 h31000 (1/m) = 1.122561e+01 h40000 (1/m) = 5.612807e+00
h20110 (1/m) = 8.477368e+01 h11200 (1/m) = 2.769764e+01 h20020 (1/m) = 1.117740e+01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are those driving terms not precisely calculated in elegant? Thanks!
csun