thin-gap vs fieldmap

https://www.dacm-logiciels.fr/tracewin
Chinakevin
Neophyte
Neophyte
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue 21 Apr 2026 12:04
Country:
China (cn)
China

Re: thin-gap vs fieldmap

Post by Chinakevin »

Thank you for your previous explanation.

Following your suggestion, we updated the GAP definition by providing all four parameters related to the transit time factor, i.e.:

βs, Ts, T′, and T″.

In our current setup, we assign:

βs: calculated from the synchronous particle energy at each gap
Ts: obtained from our field data
T′ = 0
T″ = 0

However, even after explicitly providing all four parameters in this form, we still observe no change in the simulation results (e.g., output energy and beam dynamics quantities), compared to the case where these parameters were not fully specified.

To further verify this, we also performed tests by significantly modifying Ts (for example, reducing it by a large factor), but the results remained unchanged.

Therefore, we would like to ask:

Under which conditions are βs, Ts, T′, and T″ actually taken into account in the GAP model?
Is there any specific setting, option, or calculation mode in TraceWin that enables or disables the use of these TTF-related parameters?
User avatar
FranceDidier
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 1254
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2020 14:40
Country:
France (fr)
France

Re: thin-gap vs fieldmap

Post by FranceDidier »

Do you speak about Tracking ? because in envelope if you beam is at Bs, oviously nothing will change
Chinakevin
Neophyte
Neophyte
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue 21 Apr 2026 12:04
Country:
China (cn)
China

Re: thin-gap vs fieldmap

Post by Chinakevin »

Yes, we are using multi-particle tracking (PARTRAN mode) rather than envelope calculations.
User avatar
FranceDidier
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 1254
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2020 14:40
Country:
France (fr)
France

Re: thin-gap vs fieldmap

Post by FranceDidier »

Ok, I see, in tracking mode, see Tom Wangler's book, it's much more complexe and 4 parameters must be set to a non null value.
Post Reply