E-rhic-ir-l mailing list

["Berg, J Scott" <jsberg AT bnl.gov>]

I think his compensation scheme has evolved significantly since then, this is 
probably the most significant issue to be dealt with from the lattice end. 
There are issues here with requiring magnets that we haven't planned for at 
this point, in particular having an additional solenoid field near the IR.

-Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: E-rhic-ir-l <e-rhic-ir-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> On Behalf Of
> Alexander Kiselev via E-rhic-ir-l
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 11:51 AM
> To: e-rhic-ir-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> Subject: [E-rhic-ir-l] EIC IR Maturity Conversation @ the IR Meeting
> 
>    Hello colleagues,
> 
>    in his talk during the crossing-angle-related meeting last October
> 
> https://indico.bnl.gov/event/9887/contributions/42722/attachments/30931/486
> 65/EIC_Ion_Sol_Comp_21oct20.pptx
> 
> Vasiliy reminded us that in the presently implemented solenoid
> compensation scheme the vertical excursion of the hadron beam is
> substantial, and (somewhat unfortunately) it results in a non-zero
> vertical momentum component at the IP. Ideally, we do not want this.
> 
>    I believe Vasiliy said that the compensation can be implemented
> differently, with the P_y(IP) = 0 condition observed. Can we add
> a discussion around this matter to the agenda?
> 
>    Regards,
>      Alexander.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> E-rhic-ir-l mailing list
> E-rhic-ir-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/e-rhic-ir-l