Replies: 6 comments
-
Dear @elafmusa, bending angles are in fact not trivial. They define the lattice geometry and the dispersion.
Instead what I do, is that I assume that BendingAngles are simply there to specify my reference.
The first way is the way to go in case of real lattice modifications, where the magnets will have a different field by design. May be @lfarv and @swhite2401 have better options? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hello @elafmusa Relative field errors can be easily applied using the The default value of By the way, the Valid for both python and Matlab ! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi @lfarv , Could you elaborate on why for curved magnets FieldScaling is not equivalent to manually scale PolynomA and PolynomB plus adding the extra term in PolynomB[0] that Simone mentioned? Apart from modifying edge effects what else is missing? Thanks, |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hello @ZeusMarti A pure sector dipole ( Practically, for large bending radii, this intrinsic focusing is small, so a small error on it is probably negligible. But The way On a straight magnet, I checked that numerically it gives exactly the same result as scaling |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Thanks @lfarv ! Changing the momentum looks like a nice trick! Is this AT exclusive or inherited from other codes? In case is only AT, let me congratulate and thank you again! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I'm not aware of anything similar, but that does not mean it's not used in some code… |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi everyone,
I have a bit naive question,
What is the best way to assign relative field errors to a bending magnet in PyAT? I checked the arguments of the dipole elements:
Is doing as following correct?
ring[dipole_ind].BendingAngle *=(1+ error_value * length)
Thank you
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions