1 / 4

PIC versus Frozen?

PIC versus Frozen?. PIC codes are definitely needed when coherent effects are relevant. In our case in presence of strong space charge , time varying fields , double RF at the beginning of injection using PTC-ORBIT makes a lot of sense!

roddy
Download Presentation

PIC versus Frozen?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PIC versus Frozen? • PIC codes are definitely needed when coherent effects are relevant. • In our case in presence of strong space charge, time varying fields, double RF at the beginning of injection using PTC-ORBIT makes a lot of sense! • However, one of the main SC-13 outcomes is the fact that probably the most relevant issues are of incoherent nature ➔ Frozen space charge approach might be sufficient for many aspects of our studies. • Frozen space charge codes are 10-100 faster ➔ Long time scales • Clearly for the simulations of 1.2s of the PSonly frozen space charge codes can do the job! • It has been argued that the half integer resonance in the PSBis a good candidate for coherent phenomena. However, a half integer resonance compensation improves losses a lot ➔ needs studies. • MAD-X in the newest version has the frozen space charge implemented and by the way with time varying fields. • Example for the FermilabDebunchershows quite similar results. Outcome of SC-13 1

  2. Slow extraction in Debuncher using Orbit • 3-order resonance with variable tune Qx and sext. str. K2 • First “strange” results for extraction: “intensity drop” intensity vs turns • “Intensity drop” was resolved simply at the beginning: Valery advised to make mesh refinements • PIC: “Total Beam size increases at slow extraction => mesh number should be increased to keep the cell size”

  3. Simulations with ORBIT by V. Nagaslaev Ramps are given in tables; Npart in bunch ~ 2.5e12 SC-13

  4. N_macro_surv vs Turn Number for the Debuncher • Timing on CERN computer • Macro version ~20-24h • MADX-SC • ~2-4h MAD-X V3 with Macros MADX-SC V5 SC-13

More Related