The OPAL Discussion Forum

["Adelmann Andreas (PSI)" <andreas.adelmann AT psi.ch>]

We are working full steam on the 1.6.0. I hope this will be available within 1 to 2 weeks max.

Andreas 

------
Dr. sc. math. Andreas (Andy) Adelmann
Staff Scientist
Paul Scherrer Institut WBBA/219 CH-5232 Villigen PSI
Phone Office: xx41 56 310 42 33 Fax: xx41 56 310 31 91
Phone Home: xx41 62 891 91 44
-------------------------------------------------------
Friday: ETH HPK G 28   +41 44 632 75 22
============================================
The more exotic, the more abstract the knowledge, 
the more profound will be its consequences.
Leon Lederman 
============================================

On 19 Mar 2017, at 17:14, Christof Metzger-Kraus <christof.j.kraus AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi John,

maybe Andreas can answer this question.

My plan until end of March is to improve the code that will go into version 2 of OPAL. On first of April my position in a private company begins. I don't know whether I will have enough time and impetus to help out in the development of OPAL.

Christof

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Power, John <JP AT anl.gov> wrote:

Hi Christof,

 

That's great that you found the bug, embarrassing or not!  Do you have an idea when the next release will be out?

 

John

 

 

---

From: opal-request AT lists.psi.ch [opal-request AT lists.psi.ch] on behalf of Christof Metzger-Kraus [christof.j.kraus AT gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 10:11 AM
To: Nicole Neveu
Cc: opal
Subject: Re: [Opal] 3D Field Maps in OPAL-T

Hi Nicole,

the problem wasn't in the auto-phasing algorithm but in the evaluation of the 3D field map. This bug is quite embarrassing but fixed. Unfortunately you'll have to wait for the next release. Since setting the phase manually and using APVETO won't help, only a new binary.

Christof

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Nicole Neveu <nneveu AT hawk.iit.edu> wrote:

Hi Christof, 

Thanks for the email, I will try APVETO. 

Here is a link with the input files and field maps:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B7NgZu2dVGNIdHJDNnJ0OTdGWmc?usp=sharing

The T7 files are 2D and the txt are 3D. 

Thanks! 

Nicole

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Christof Metzger-Kraus <christof.j.kraus AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Nicole,

could you send me the input file. I'll look into it as soon as possible. In the meantime you could try to set the phase by hand using the phase that OPAL finds for the 2D fieldmap. When setting the phase manualy then you should add add APVETO=TRUE to the description of the cavity in the input file. Then OPAL doesn't try to auto-phase the cavity.

christof

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Nicole Neveu <nneveu AT hawk.iit.edu> wrote:

Hi OPAL'ers, 

I recently tried to add a second 3DDynamic RF fieldmap to one of my beam line simulations in OPAL-T. I was seeing no energy gain in the second cavity with this beamline layout: 

3D RF gun ----Solenoids --- 3D RF Linac

After trying this and that, phase scan, etc, I paired the 3D Linac with a 2D gun, and saw energy gain: 

2D RF gun ----Solenoids--- 3D RF Linac

Has anyone else seen this behavior? Do both cavities need to be exactly the same phase for OPAL to autophase or sync them? In this case, the desired freq is 1.3 GHz, and the two field maps differ by ~0.2 MHz. My guess is that is too small to make a difference?

I can send input files and data, if interested.

Thanks, 

Nicole