Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byJewel Curtis Modified over 9 years ago
1
Magnet development experiments B. Plaster Last collaboration meeting (February 2007) x : field direction y : “vertical” z : axial N = 40 cos θ coil 1/7-prototype r = 8.75 cm ℓ/r = 10 Coil + 3x Metglas Shield at 300 K Coil + 3x Metglas Shield at 77 K Investigated Source of Asymmetry Percentage Deviation [%] of B x
2
Thermal contraction of wires B. Plaster Originally: Cu magnet wire wound on Al frameAl CTE: 24 ppm/K Cu CTE: 17 ppm/K 300 K 77 K Prediction Percentage Deviation [%] of B x Coil with Cu wire No ferromagnetic shield
3
Thermal contraction of wires B. Plaster Improvement: Al magnet wire Percentage Deviation [%] of B x 300 K 77 K Prediction Coil with Al wire No ferromagnetic shield
4
Shielding factor attenuation B. Plaster For (cos θ coil + 3x Metglas) studies Metglas shielding factor decreases ~10 at 77K Reduced attenuation of (non-uniform ) background fields Percentage Deviation [%] of B x Coil (Al Wire) + 3x Metglas at 77 K ~ 1 mGauss
5
Shielding factor attenuation B. Plaster Field Deviation [Gauss] of B x Room Background ~ 4 mGauss ~ 0.7 mGauss Shielded 77K Background Need Background Gradient 0.5 mGauss ~ 0.5 mGauss For (cos θ coil + 3x Metglas) studies Metglas shielding factor decreases ~10 at 77K Reduced attenuation of (non-uniform ) background fields
6
Shielding factor attenuation B. Plaster Improvement: more (multi-layer) shielding 3-layer shield: inner Metglas, Cryoperm, outer Metglas 77K background attenuated by factor of ~10 300 K 77 K Prediction
7
Future “small-scale” experiments B. Plaster In process of fabricating (~90% complete) ~ 17%-scale prototype with optimized N = 34, ℓ/r = 6.4 [r ~ 11 cm] N ℓ / r global minimum cell ~ 0.04 mGauss 1.5 Gauss Factor of ~12 more uniform
8
Other “experiments” B. Plaster Wire “droop” and tensioning required for 1/2-scale Diameter ~ 26”, length ~ 7 feet
9
Wire Tension Test m ~ 6 feet I-bolt fixed anchor point fixed heights fixed with level floor wire “droop” from level measured with transit as function of m massdroop from level 50 g0.209” = 5.31 mm 100 g0.134” = 3.40 mm 150 g0.104” = 2.64 mm 200 g0.084” = 2.13 mm 250 g0.072” = 1.83 mm 300 g0.061” = 1.55 mm 350 g0.051” = 1.30 mm massdroop from level 400 g0.041” = 1.04 mm 450 g0.034” = 0.86 mm 550 g0.012” = 0.31 mm 650 g0.006” = 0.15 mm 750 g0.003” = 0.08 mm 850 g0.000” = 0.00 mm Bob Carr / Brad Plaster Feb. 22-23, 2007 Wire specs: SC-T48B-6-0.4mm from Supercon 0.44 mm diameter Formvar insulation
10
TOSCA modeling indicated two possible sources of asymmetries: Welds on shield cylinders Mis-alignment of axis of coil relative to shield Cryoperm shield coil Sample TOSCA result Importance of co-axial alignment !! (see R. Alarcon TOSCA talk) welds October 2006 Collaboration Meeting
11
New idea “Wind” Metglas strips directly onto surface of cos coil support frame Monolithic design guarantees co-axial alignment Also desirable as comes in 0.8-mil thick strips, few layers sufficient; thin shield desirable for Eddy current heating Metglas winding cos coil support frame October 2006 Collaboration Meeting
12
Office of Nuclear Physics Pre-proposal: Cylindrical superconducting shield surrounding cos θ coil Mirror currents in superconductor result in worsening of field uniformity Now: Ferromagnetic shield surrounding cos θ coil Mirror currents in ferromagnetic material result in improved field uniformity Impact of inner ferromagnetic shield Results of initial TOSCA calculations confirmed improvement in field uniformity for cos θ coil + ferromagnetic shield prototype-sized coil dimensions cos θ coil only cos θ coil + shield
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.