Project

General

Profile

Feature #1543

Step pi design study

Added by Rogers, Chris over 8 years ago. Updated over 5 years ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Start date:
14 August 2014
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Estimated time:

Description

We have been requested by DOE MAP review committee to make a design study for a new lattice without a coupling coil.


Files

Step-pi-symmetric-lattice.pdf (184 KB) Step-pi-symmetric-lattice.pdf Rogers, Chris, 18 August 2014 08:21
2_cavity_spacing.jpg (439 KB) 2_cavity_spacing.jpg Rogers, Chris, 18 August 2014 08:23
TD-1152-9148-1.pdf (158 KB) TD-1152-9148-1.pdf Engineering drawing from Jason Tarrant Blackmore, Victoria, 18 August 2014 11:26
TD-1152-9243-1.pdf (185 KB) TD-1152-9243-1.pdf Engineering drawing from Jason Tarrant Blackmore, Victoria, 18 August 2014 11:26
AFC_AsBuilt.jpg (269 KB) AFC_AsBuilt.jpg Drawing from TESLA Blackmore, Victoria, 18 August 2014 11:26
2014-08-14-Step-pi.pdf (88 KB) 2014-08-14-Step-pi.pdf Long, Kenneth, 18 August 2014 16:04
Step-pi-symmetric-lattice.pdf (427 KB) Step-pi-symmetric-lattice.pdf Rogers, Chris, 19 August 2014 09:23
MICE_StepPi_JPasternak.pdf (276 KB) MICE_StepPi_JPasternak.pdf Slides of Jaroslaw Pasternak Rogers, Chris, 19 August 2014 11:54
Alternative_Lattice_Design.pdf (574 KB) Alternative_Lattice_Design.pdf Blackmore, Victoria, 20 August 2014 13:12
Step-pi-symmetric-lattice_v3.pdf (446 KB) Step-pi-symmetric-lattice_v3.pdf Update to add acceptance plots Rogers, Chris, 20 August 2014 14:14
StepPi_reference_version_1.dat (9.19 KB) StepPi_reference_version_1.dat MAUS lattice for StepPi reference version 1 Rogers, Chris, 20 August 2014 18:03
StepPi_reference_version_1_for003.dat (1.07 MB) StepPi_reference_version_1_for003.dat ICOOL beam file for particles on hyper ellipsoid Rogers, Chris, 20 August 2014 18:03
Step-pi-symmetric-lattice_v4.pdf (472 KB) Step-pi-symmetric-lattice_v4.pdf Rogers, Chris, 21 August 2014 15:00
StepPi_reference_version_2.tar.gz (17.1 KB) StepPi_reference_version_2.tar.gz Reference version 2 Rogers, Chris, 21 August 2014 17:21
Bz.png (20.1 KB) Bz.png Rogers, Chris, 22 August 2014 07:14
beta.png (30.1 KB) beta.png Rogers, Chris, 22 August 2014 07:14
As-built_coil_dimensions__positions_and_currents.pdf (1.63 MB) As-built_coil_dimensions__positions_and_currents.pdf Blackmore, Victoria, 22 August 2014 09:54
Step-pi-symmetric-lattice_v5.pdf (521 KB) Step-pi-symmetric-lattice_v5.pdf Momentum spread, tracking vs z results, clean up of some older plots Rogers, Chris, 22 August 2014 16:28
Alternative_Lattices.pdf (1.05 MB) Alternative_Lattices.pdf Blackmore, Victoria, 29 August 2014 17:47
icool_vs_g4bl_comparison.pdf (213 KB) icool_vs_g4bl_comparison.pdf Snopok, Pavel, 29 August 2014 18:05
corrections.zip (7.08 MB) corrections.zip Rogers, Chris, 09 September 2014 09:43
output___--_FC_40.0_p_200.0.tar.gz (65.1 MB) output___--_FC_40.0_p_200.0.tar.gz Rogers, Chris, 19 September 2014 17:05
Rogers_AlternativeLattice.dat (9.87 KB) Rogers_AlternativeLattice.dat Blackmore, Victoria, 30 September 2014 11:18
Rogers_AlternativeLattice_InputBeam.py (1.67 KB) Rogers_AlternativeLattice_InputBeam.py Blackmore, Victoria, 30 September 2014 11:18
Snopok_ReferenceLattice.g4bl (3.63 KB) Snopok_ReferenceLattice.g4bl Blackmore, Victoria, 30 September 2014 11:18
StepPi_SimulationDescription.pdf (4.47 MB) StepPi_SimulationDescription.pdf Blackmore, Victoria, 03 October 2014 12:18
Step3PiBy2LatticeNote.zip (8.77 MB) Step3PiBy2LatticeNote.zip Blackmore, Victoria, 03 October 2014 12:22
DOE_Geomtry_File.dat (67.3 KB) DOE_Geomtry_File.dat Hunt, Christopher, 03 October 2014 14:23
StepPi_SimulationDescription_v2.pdf (4.47 MB) StepPi_SimulationDescription_v2.pdf Updated text only, 13/Oct/14 Blackmore, Victoria, 13 October 2014 11:50
fc_sim.tar.gz (41.1 MB) fc_sim.tar.gz Rogers, Chris, 29 October 2014 14:31
simulation_analysis.py (18.2 KB) simulation_analysis.py Rogers, Chris, 29 October 2014 14:34
Step_3pi2_ref_8_1.dat (68.6 KB) Step_3pi2_ref_8_1.dat Geometry File Hunt, Christopher, 31 October 2014 16:18
Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_ref_8_1.py (2.83 KB) Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_ref_8_1.py Configuration File Hunt, Christopher, 31 October 2014 16:18
Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_ppmm_5.py (2.82 KB) Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_ppmm_5.py Configuration File for geometry 5 Hunt, Christopher, 01 November 2014 17:28
Step_3pi2_ppmm_5.dat (68.6 KB) Step_3pi2_ppmm_5.dat Geometry 5 - Only primary absorber included Hunt, Christopher, 01 November 2014 17:28
Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_ppmm_12.py (2.82 KB) Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_ppmm_12.py Configuration File for geometry 11. Emittance_l = 0.020, alpha_l = 0.0 Hunt, Christopher, 01 November 2014 17:28
Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_ppmm_16.py (2.82 KB) Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_ppmm_16.py Configuration File for geomtry 11. Emittance_l = 0.004, alpha_l = -1.0 Hunt, Christopher, 01 November 2014 17:28
Step_3pi2_ppmm_11.dat (69.3 KB) Step_3pi2_ppmm_11.dat Geomtry 11. Secondary absorbers included. Hunt, Christopher, 01 November 2014 17:28
reference_plots_vs_z.tar.gz (185 KB) reference_plots_vs_z.tar.gz Rogers, Chris, 07 November 2014 16:48
simulation_analysis_v2.py (20.8 KB) simulation_analysis_v2.py Rogers, Chris, 07 November 2014 16:48
alternative_plots_vs_z.tar.gz (1.95 MB) alternative_plots_vs_z.tar.gz Rogers, Chris, 09 November 2014 04:46
emit_in_vs_.tar.gz (48.4 KB) emit_in_vs_.tar.gz Rogers, Chris, 09 November 2014 05:30
reference_radius_plots_vs_z.tar.gz (71.7 KB) reference_radius_plots_vs_z.tar.gz Rogers, Chris, 09 November 2014 06:28
alternative_radius_plots.tar.gz (73 KB) alternative_radius_plots.tar.gz Rogers, Chris, 09 November 2014 06:28
MICE-Demonstration-Of-Ionisation-Cooling.pdf (1.06 MB) MICE-Demonstration-Of-Ionisation-Cooling.pdf Blackmore, Victoria, 10 November 2014 13:11
Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_ref_ppmm_19_em_6.py (2.86 KB) Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_ref_ppmm_19_em_6.py Hunt, Christopher, 20 November 2014 17:40
Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_alt_4_em_6.py (2.86 KB) Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_alt_4_em_6.py Hunt, Christopher, 20 November 2014 17:40
Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_alt_5_em_6.py (2.86 KB) Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_alt_5_em_6.py Hunt, Christopher, 20 November 2014 17:40
Step_3pi2_alt_4.dat (52.3 KB) Step_3pi2_alt_4.dat Hunt, Christopher, 20 November 2014 17:40
Step_3pi2_alt_5.dat (52.8 KB) Step_3pi2_alt_5.dat Hunt, Christopher, 20 November 2014 17:40
Step_3pi2_ppmm_5.dat (68.6 KB) Step_3pi2_ppmm_5.dat Hunt, Christopher, 20 November 2014 17:40
Step_3pi2_ppmm_11.dat (69.3 KB) Step_3pi2_ppmm_11.dat Hunt, Christopher, 20 November 2014 17:40
Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_ref_ppmm_18_em_6.py (2.86 KB) Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_ref_ppmm_18_em_6.py Hunt, Christopher, 20 November 2014 17:40
dan_kaplan_demo_corrections.zip (11.6 MB) dan_kaplan_demo_corrections.zip Rogers, Chris, 03 August 2016 10:55
Comments_on_MICE_Demo_paper.pdf (19.1 KB) Comments_on_MICE_Demo_paper.pdf Rogers, Chris, 03 August 2016 11:04
DEMO-paper_v1.3jhc.pdf (1.51 MB) DEMO-paper_v1.3jhc.pdf Rogers, Chris, 10 August 2016 10:27
DEMO-paper_v1.3-kevin-ronald.pdf (1.47 MB) DEMO-paper_v1.3-kevin-ronald.pdf Rogers, Chris, 10 August 2016 10:57

Related issues

Related to Analysis - Feature #1547: MICE Step Pi in G4beamlineClosedRogers, Chris22 August 2014

Actions
#1

Updated by Rogers, Chris over 8 years ago

Our plan is to make a technical note by NuFact. We plan to examine the following lattices:

Design options

  • symmetric lattice:
    • flip (FC +- -+)
    • alternative flip (FC +- +-)
    • semi-flip (FC ++ --)
    • solenoid (FC ++ ++)
  • RF near SS
    • SS RF AFC RF AFC RF SS
    • SS RF AFC RF SS
  • asymmetric magnetic lattice:
    • anything goes
  • absorber:
    • in middle of 2 RF cavities
    • in AFC
    • in both positions
  • tracker radiation shielding
    • using absorber in AFC
    • using shielding in tracker volume
    • unshielded tracker
  • RF
    • 1 cavity
    • 2 cavity

Design Criteria

Our design criteria will be

  • Lattice quality
    • cooling performance
    • cell optics
    • momentum restoration
    • similarity to known cooling channel design
    • quality of match to spectrometer (for symmetric case)
    • scraping aperture/transverse acceptance
    • momentum acceptance
    • canonical angular momentum effects
  • Engineering issues
    • current limits of magnets
    • incremental cost of any additional hardware
    • radiation load on the tracker
    • RF breakdown (in magnetic fields)

Assumptions

Our assumptions are:
  • Geometry
    • AFC dimension 844 mm full length [source: Blackmore]
    • AFC - RF bellows 56 mm [source: Blackmore]
    • single cavity module length - assume 600 mm [source: Yagmur]
    • two cavity module length - assume 1000 mm [source: Yagmur]
  • RF
    • RF power available - 4 MW as baseline, with 8 MW as an upgrade with corresponding cost, schedule and technical risk
    • RF volts is sqrt(cavity power)*8 MV/m
  • Step IV coil pack As-built_coil_dimensions__positions_and_currents.pdf [Victoria Blacmore]
    • The spectrometer solenoid coils (Match1 through End2) can be moved bodily away from FC module; but no closer
  • probably some other stuff we didn't think of yet...

The level of study we intend will all be linear beam optics with no tracking for first iteration.

#2

Updated by Rogers, Chris over 8 years ago

First thoughts on lattice design...

#3

Updated by Rogers, Chris over 8 years ago

Engineering diagram for proposed 2 cavity module planned for Step V (c/o Bross)

#5

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria over 8 years ago

  • File As-built_coil_dimensions_and_locations.pdf added

Blackmore, Victoria wrote:

SS and FC positions and dimensions, centred on Step IV: pdf

Based on:
1. Engineering drawing of AFC
2. Engineering drawing of SS
3. FC built dimensions

Also uploaded table of "as built" coil dimensions and positions, with positions corresponding to z = 0 at the centre of the FC.

#6

Updated by Long, Kenneth over 8 years ago

Notes on our meeting 14:00 18Aug14:

#7

Updated by Rogers, Chris over 8 years ago

Updated slides with optics solutions/discussion

#9

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria over 8 years ago

  • File As-built_coil_dimensions__positions_and_currents.pdf added

Updated magnet position document. Now includes:
- table of 'as built' coil dimensions
- maximum currents and current densities coils have been operated at
- diagrams of coil locations within Step IV.

#13

Updated by Rogers, Chris over 8 years ago

Symmetric lattice slides v4. Conclusions:

The cooling performance is okay and it is really similar to a "production" lattice.

#14

Updated by Rogers, Chris over 8 years ago

I uploaded reference version 2:

  • Changed mode to ++-- to avoid optical emittance growth issue
  • Added cooling hardware

Beam should be set up to have constant beta in 4 T field:

  • beta_trans = 333 mm
  • alpha_trans = 0
  • canonical angular momentum = 0
  • p = 200. MeV/c
#15

Updated by Rogers, Chris over 8 years ago

By email from Pavel

Hi All,

I put together a G4beamline deck. Bz seems ok, but the beta function is off
by quite a bit (any ideas?). I start with beta=333 mm @ z=-4050 mm.
Hopefully, this is something I can sort out in the morning.

Pavel

Bz.png
beta.png

#16

Updated by Rogers, Chris over 8 years ago

Nb: Pavel added G4BL stuff as #1547

#17

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria over 8 years ago

  • File deleted (As-built_coil_dimensions__positions_and_currents.pdf)
#18

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria over 8 years ago

  • File deleted (As-built_coil_dimensions_and_locations.pdf)
#19

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria over 8 years ago

Deleting old versions of magnet dimensions document to avoid confusion. Uploading version with diagrams and tables of dimensions & current densities.

(Credit goes to C. Rogers for spotting the swapping of current & current density in the FC's column -- now fixed)

#20

Updated by Rogers, Chris over 8 years ago

Symmetric lattice slides v5 uploaded...

#21

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria over 8 years ago

  • File Alternative_Lattices.pdf added

Slides for this afternoon's meeting.

#22

Updated by Snopok, Pavel over 8 years ago

  • File icool_vs_g4bl_comparison.pdf added

ICOOL vs G4beamline comparison for the reference design.

#23

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria over 8 years ago

  • File Alternative_Lattices.pdf added

Blackmore, Victoria wrote:

Slides for this afternoon's meeting.

The above slides with slide numbers!

#24

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria over 8 years ago

  • File deleted (Alternative_Lattices.pdf)
#25

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria over 8 years ago

  • File deleted (Alternative_Lattices.pdf)
#26

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria over 8 years ago

Updated slides after today's meeting.

#27

Updated by Snopok, Pavel over 8 years ago

  • File deleted (icool_vs_g4bl_comparison.pdf)
#28

Updated by Snopok, Pavel over 8 years ago

ICOOL vs G4beamline comparison for the reference design.

#31

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago

  • File DOE_Review_Lattice_Geometries.pdf added

Not-to-scale "drawings" of the lattices used for the plots in the DOE review document. Contains both the 'reference' and 'alternative' lattices, with current densities given for 200 MeV/c simulations.

#32

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago

  • File deleted (DOE_Review_Lattice_Geometries.pdf)
#33

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago

  • File DOE_Review_Lattice_Geometries.pdf added

Updating 'DOE_Review_Lattice_Geometries' (deleted in item 32 so we avoid duplication), to include the aluminium absorber windows and helium windows that were added to the reference geometry.

#34

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago

Adding note that describes the MAUS and G4BL simulations that made the plots for the DOE review document. Also adding the geometry files the note derives its numbers from.

The MAUS version used by C. Hunt (including all geometries and run scripts) has been uploaded to launchpad: lp:~christopher-hunt08/maus/maus_DOE_review_version

#35

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago

  • File deleted (StepPi_SimulationDescription.pdf)
#36

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago

Updated to reflect final changes made to geometry before final submitted plots were created with the reference lattice.

NB: This replaces 'DOE_Review_Lattice_Geometries.pdf'

#38

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago

  • File deleted (Jaroslaw_Hunt_ReferenceLattice_v2.dat)
#39

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago

  • File deleted (DOE_Review_Lattice_Geometries.pdf)
#40

Updated by Hunt, Christopher about 8 years ago

  • File Step_3pi2_alt_15_1.dat added

Added the Geometry File used to generate the plots that were added to the DOE report. This file includes the Tracker He windows, but not the AFC Windows.

#41

Updated by Hunt, Christopher about 8 years ago

  • File deleted (Step_3pi2_alt_15_1.dat)
#42

Updated by Hunt, Christopher about 8 years ago

File renamed more appropriately.

#43

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago

Updates made to the text (figures and tables remain the same).

#44

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago

Simulation description uploaded as MICE Note 450

#45

Updated by Rogers, Chris about 8 years ago

Please find attached simulation files for the 6D cooling run which I presented as last slide on Tuesday

#46

Updated by Rogers, Chris about 8 years ago

And analysis script...

#47

Updated by Hunt, Christopher about 8 years ago

The most recent Step 3pi/2 geometry for the - settings, as presented at CM40.
Non-linear effects appear to be ruining the emittance near the downstream field flip. See the ++- setting for better behaviour.

#48

Updated by Hunt, Christopher about 8 years ago

Adding the geometry and configuration files that were used to produce the plots presented by Jean-Baptiste at CM40 for the ++-- Setting of the reference design.

All using 200 MeV/c momentum positive muons and 6mm input emittance at the upstream tracker.

Geoemtry 5: Only Primary absorbers.
Config 5: Emittance_l = 0.004, alpha_l = -1.0

Geometry 11: Includes Secondary absorbers.
Config 12: Emittance_l = 0.020, alpha_l = 0.0
Config 16: Emittance_l = 0.004, alpha_l = -1.0

#49

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago

  • File Paper.zip added

MPB draft note

#50

Updated by Rogers, Chris about 8 years ago

Attached plots vs z

This is tracking of 10k particles. Alternative and Reference have primary absorber only. cuts are listed in simulation_analysis.log. Plots which Victoria asked for are beta_vs_z*, emittance_trans_vs_z*, bz_vs_z*

For reference I attach the simulation_analysis script I used to generate the plots. Let me know if there is a problem. I will try to clean up the plots vs input emittance and upload them next.

#51

Updated by Rogers, Chris about 8 years ago

  • File alternative_plots_vs_z.tar.gz added
  • Assignee set to Rogers, Chris

Victoria spotted a problem, I screwed up the SS current by ~ 5%. I will pick up my P45 on the way out. Revised alternative plots vs z attached. Probably explains the mismatch the others were seeing if they used the correct SS currents. I fixed some other badness:

  • I now start alternative and reference from the same point in the SS i.e. different point in global coordinate system.
  • I added windows to alternative (but I don't have much Helium in the Helium volume and I have not run the geometry verification scripts to check that it looks okay)
#52

Updated by Rogers, Chris about 8 years ago

  • File deleted (alternative_plots_vs_z.tar.gz)
#53

Updated by Rogers, Chris about 8 years ago

  • File deleted (alternative_plots_vs_z.tar.gz)
#55

Updated by Rogers, Chris about 8 years ago

the transverse emittance performance plots. I note that the alternative has a kink at highest emittance value, probably this means that the cooling is cut dominated here...

#56

Updated by Rogers, Chris about 8 years ago

...and here attached the radius plots.

Victoria asked for 3 sigma, they didn't look so good so I made 95 % and 99 % radius plots as well. We should do something similar for emittance I think.

I included three aperture guides, SS (200.5 mm), RF (210 mm), FC (235.5 mm).

#57

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago

  • File Paper-draft-0pt2.zip added

Latest paper version including plots so far (this is the whole zipped directory, so includes all root files from C. Rogers & C. Hunt to date)

#58

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago

  • File deleted (Paper.zip)
#59

Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago

  • File deleted (Paper-draft-0pt2.zip)
#61

Updated by Hunt, Christopher about 8 years ago

These are the configuration files and geometries that I was using to make the plots for the report. Please excuse the arbitrary numbering scheme. There was a system (two in fact - which is why they don't seem to make much sense). Numbers correspond as follows:

Step_3pi2_alt_4.dat - Alternative geometry, rematched by Jaroslaw, Primary absorbers only
Step_3pi2_alt_5.dat - Alternative geometry, rematched by Jaroslaw, Primary and Secondary absorbers
Step_3pi2_ppmm_5.dat - Reference geometry, Primary absorbers only
Step_3pi2_ppmm_11.dat - Reference geometry, Primary and Secondary absorbers

Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_ref_ppmm_18_em_6.py - Configuration file for Alternative Geometry 11, 6mm input beam
Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_ref_ppmm_19_em_6.py - Configuration file for Alternitive Geometry 5, 6mm input beam
Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_alt_4_em=6.py - Configuration file for reference Geometry 4, 6mm input beam
Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_alt_5_em=6.py - Configuration file for reference Geometry 5, 6mm input beam

#62

Updated by Rogers, Chris over 6 years ago

Corrections from dan kaplan (by hand)

#63

Updated by Rogers, Chris over 6 years ago

Corrections from Chris Booth.

#64

Updated by Rogers, Chris over 6 years ago

Comments from John Cobb:

Some comments after flicking through the figures:

Figs 10 & 15:

a) If, instead of dEps/Eps versus Epsin, you simply plot dEps versus Epsin, you should get a nice straight line (crossing zero at Eps_eqm).

b) The cooling formula is given right up front of the paper. Should be compared on these plots, and if it disagrees, explain why.

Figs 11 & 16 (and 7):

Who cares about transmission per se? If you lose 20% (say) of high amplitude particles but increase the number in some acceptance, you've won.  There will be muons with such high amplitudes that no realistic amount of cooling would ever bring them into the interesting acceptance.

I would plot the before and after amplitude distributions (and perhaps their ratio), which would demonstrate both cooling and transmission on the same plot.

jhc
#65

Updated by Rogers, Chris over 6 years ago

Further comments from John Cobb.

#66

Updated by Rogers, Chris over 6 years ago

Comments from Kevin by email and in attachment

Dear All,

Some additional comments- minor I think except for the note 
in my earlier message.

Best wishes,

Kevin
________________________________________
From: Kevin Ronald
Sent: 10 August 2016 10:25
To: chris.rogers@STFC.AC.UK; j.lagrange@imperial.ac.uk; j.pasternak@imperial.ac.uk
Subject: Demo paper

Hello All,

It may be a little odd as the appointed referee, but I will send some more comments
on the paper today- mostly very minor so far, but something is wrong in para 2 page 2
regarding radiation lengths and Z- If I missed this before I apologise.

I think it should say ...material with low atomic number (Z) in which...

Best wishes,

Kevin
#67

Updated by Rogers, Chris over 6 years ago

Hi:

Here are some comments on

Design and expected performance of the MICE Demonstration of Ionization Cooling

Best,
Don

*****************

No mention is made of running with the downstream matching coil M1 off.

Ref [1] is really just neutrino factories.  For lepton colliders one 
might want to add
[1A} C. M. Ankenbrandt et al.. Phys.Rev.ST Accel.Beams 2 (1999) 081001

Line 49 
Actually the muon collider requires a transverse emittance of 
0.025mm and a longitudinal emittance of 72 mm.  See
R. B. Palmer et al., arXiv:0711.4275

Formula 1
One might want to add the partition number, g_t, in the numerator of
the first term to take wedge absorbers into account.  See
D. Neuffer, arXiv:1312.1266

Line 57
channel --> channel down to 3cm  
See
D. Stratakis and R. B. Palmer, Phys.Rev.ST Accel.Beams 18 (2015) 031003 

Figure 1 caption
Kloe --> KLOE

Ref [9[ now published as JINST 11 (2016) P05006 

Ref [20] add IPAC-2011-MOPZ013 

#68

Updated by Rogers, Chris over 6 years ago

Should have noted, those comments in note 67 are from Don Summers (U. Mississipi)

#69

Updated by Rogers, Chris over 5 years ago

  • Status changed from Open to Closed
  • % Done changed from 0 to 100

The paper was accepted

Also available in: Atom PDF