Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

6.3.1 Far-Backwards Lattice #838

Draft
wants to merge 12 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

6.3.1 Far-Backwards Lattice #838

wants to merge 12 commits into from

Conversation

simonge
Copy link
Contributor

@simonge simonge commented Mar 5, 2025

Briefly, what does this PR introduce?

Originally instigated by moving the B2eR magnet out of the cryostat, this geometry matches the most recent lattice of the accelerator in the far backward region.

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

  • Bug fix (issue #__)
  • New feature (issue #__)
  • Documentation update
  • Other: __

Please check if this PR fulfills the following:

  • Tests for the changes have been added
  • Documentation has been added / updated
  • Changes have been communicated to collaborators

Does this PR introduce breaking changes? What changes might users need to make to their code?

No

Does this PR change default behavior?

Changes the path of electrons in the far-backward region. This will break the Low-Q2 Tagger reconstruction, simple retraining of the network should be sufficient after this is eventually merged.

@simonge
Copy link
Contributor Author

simonge commented Mar 5, 2025

@nat93 @adamjaro Please could you check the quadrupole fields have been calculated correctly from the tables, I don't think the x/y divergence plots I see quite match those you both previously shared.
https://github.com/eic/epic/blob/6.3-Lattice/compact/fields/beamline_18x275.xml#L22

@veprbl veprbl requested a review from ajentsch March 7, 2025 17:46
@ajentsch
Copy link
Contributor

ajentsch commented Mar 7, 2025

@simonge have the quad fields been confirmed yet? I will approve once your question has been answered by either @adamjaro or @nat93 to make sure things are correct.

Copy link
Contributor

@ajentsch ajentsch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@simonge have the quad fields been confirmed yet? I will approve once your question has been answered by either @adamjaro or @nat93 to make sure things are correct.

Also, you may need to pull the latest version of epic because there are some new magnet XML files I put together. I made some new changes today. You should wait until those are approved, and merged, and THEN pull that new version in, and add your changes to the additional XML files for the magnets.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants