完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位語言
dc.contributor.authorHwang, CSen_US
dc.contributor.authorChang, CHen_US
dc.contributor.authorTseng, PKen_US
dc.contributor.authorUen, TMen_US
dc.contributor.authorLeDuff, Jen_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-02T06:00:52Z-
dc.date.available2019-04-02T06:00:52Z-
dc.date.issued1996-12-11en_US
dc.identifier.issn0168-9002en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(96)00801-7en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11536/149398-
dc.description.abstractMagnetic field features of a rectangular combined function bending magnet are different from the sector magnet. A strong edge focusing factor (i.e., thin lens effect) intrinsically exists at the two magnet edges for the rectangular bending magnet. Therefore, in this study, we develop two kinds of Hall probe mapping trajectory with four analysis methods to measure and analyze the bending magnet's field behavior. A sufficient correlation among the four methods is an important feature. Those methods are individually used to derive the pole face tilt and bent, the effective magnetic length and to check the specification establish by the beam dynamics group. As for the two mapping methods, one is called ''Radial Mapping'' whose mapping trajectories in the longitudinal direction (s-axis) follow the different are lengths of radius rho+/-r and the transverse trajectories follow the radial displacement +/-r perpendicular to the are trajectory. The other one is called ''Lamination Mapping'' whose mapping trajectories in the longitudinal direction follow the constant are length of circle radius rho and the transverse trajectories follow the transverse axis displacement +/-x parallel to the lamination direction. This study also discusses the differences between those two mapping methods. Results obtained from the harmonic field distribution along the longitudinal direction (including the fringing field) and the main components of the integral strength are compared. The subsequent error of the four analysis methods is 0.01% for the dipole strength and 0.3% for the quadrupole strength individually. According to the specifications, those analysis errors are acceptable. Meanwhile, the accuracies of different methods for the higher multipole strengths are all within tolerances. The peculiar sextupole field behavior at the two magnet edges from the different mapping methods is owing to the effective magnet pole face that will be discussed.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.titleDifferent kinds of analysis methods on a rectangular combined function bending magneten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S0168-9002(96)00801-7en_US
dc.identifier.journalNUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH SECTION A-ACCELERATORS SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENTen_US
dc.citation.volume383en_US
dc.citation.spage301en_US
dc.citation.epage308en_US
dc.contributor.department電子物理學系zh_TW
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Electrophysicsen_US
dc.identifier.wosnumberWOS:A1996VZ88900005en_US
dc.citation.woscount3en_US
顯示於類別:期刊論文