Generation of circular field harmonics in quasi-polygonal magnet apertures using superconducting canted-cosine-theta coils

Jie Li; Kedong Wang; Kun Zhu

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 16 references

Generation of circular field harmonics in quasi-polygonal magnet apertures using superconducting canted-cosine-theta coils

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Conformal mapping lets a quasi-polygonal current shell, built as a canted-cosine-theta winding, reproduce circular field harmonics inside the bore.

desk verdict Solid conformal-mapping idea, but the quasi-triangle and quasi-square derivations are internally inconsistent with the stated mappings. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16068 v1 pith:EDV4TNIZ submitted 2024-11-25 physics.acc-ph

Jie Li , Kedong Wang , Kun Zhu This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.acc-ph

keywords conformalmappingcanted-cosine-thetacoilquasi-polygonalaperturesuperconductingmagnetmultipoleharmonicsCCTwindingpathaccelerator

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish an analytic bridge between circular and quasi-polygonal magnet bores: a current shell in the shape of an ellipse, rounded triangle, or rounded square can be made to generate the same circular multipole harmonics that a circular shell generates. The bridge is a conformal map $\zeta(z)$ from the circle to the polygon; the required surface current is $J_z \propto \cos(n\theta)/|\zeta'(z)|$, and it produces the harmonic $\operatorname{Re}[\zeta^n]$ inside the aperture. The paper then shows how a canted-cosine-$\theta$ (CCT) winding, whose path is $X=\operatorname{Re}\zeta$, $Y=\operatorname{Im}\zeta$, $Z=w\theta/(2\pi)+(A_n/n)\sin(n\theta)$, approximates that current density. If the construction is correct, a designer can write down the winding scheme for a non-circular CCT magnet directly from the desired harmonic content, without numerical re-optimization of coil blocks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the conformal map $\zeta(z)$ together with the transformation rule for Poisson's equation under a change of variables. When a line current distribution is carried from the $z$-plane to the $\zeta$-plane, its strength is rescaled by $1/|\zeta'(z)|$, which is why the circular $\cos(n\theta)$ shell current becomes $\cos(n\theta)/|\zeta'(z)|$ on the mapped polygon. For the CCT implementation, the mechanism is the winding path parametrization $X=\operatorname{Re}\zeta(\rho_0,\theta)$, $Y=\operatorname{Im}\zeta(\rho_0,\theta)$, $Z=w\theta/(2\pi)+(A_n/n)\sin(n\theta)$; differentiating $Z$ gives a longitudinal current density $J_z=(I/w)dZ/ds$ whose $\theta$-dependence is $\cos(n\theta)/|\zeta'(z)|$. The maps used are $\zeta=\frac12(z+c^2/z)$ for the ellipse, $\zeta=z^2/c+c^2/z$ for the quasi-triangle, and $\zeta=-z^3/c^2+c^2/z$ for the quasi-square, with restricted arcs removed from the circle to keep the mapped curves non-self-intersecting.

What would settle it

Take the actual discrete winding path of Eq. (25) for a quasi-triangular CCT sextupole, compute its field by Biot-Savart with a realistic wire cross-section and a few tens of turns, and decompose the field into multipoles about the bore centre; if the unwanted harmonics (for example $B_9$ and $B_{15}$) are not at least an order of magnitude below the desired $B_3$, then the winding path does not realize the sheet current $J_z\propto \cos(3\theta)/|\zeta'(z)|$ and the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that conformal mapping transfers the standard circular-shell multipole solution to quasi-polygonal shells with no approximation beyond the idealization of a continuous sheet. For a map $\zeta(z)$ of the forms used here (the ellipse map $\zeta=\frac12(z+c^2/z)$, the triangle map $\zeta=z^2/c+c^2/z$, and the square map $\zeta=-z^3/c^2+c^2/z$), a surface current density $J_z\propto \cos(n\theta)/|\zeta'(z)|$ on the image of the circle $\rho=\rho_0$ produces inside the aperture the pure circular harmonic $\operatorname{Re}[\zeta^n]$ (and $\operatorname{Im}[\zeta^n]$ for skew harmonics). The same recipe gives the current distribution for the quasi-rectangular example $\zeta=-z^3+z+2/z$. Applying the result to CCT coils, the winding path of Eq. (25) makes the longitudinal current density $J_z=(I/w)\,dZ/ds$ proportional to $\cos(n\theta)/|\zeta'(z)|$ on the polygonal former, so a single-layer CCT coil on an elliptical, quasi-triangular, or quasi-square former produces the desired low-order multipole; the paper checks this with a Biot-Savart calculation of an idealized infinite thin-wire winding. It also reports that a quasi-square shell encloses a larger area than a circle with nearly the same stored energy per unit area, indicating that the polygonal aperture does not sacrifice much efficiency.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a real helical winding behaves like the idealized smooth surface current in which the azimuthal current spreads uniformly and the two opposite-tilt layers cancel each other's solenoid field exactly; on a non-circular former, where the local surface normal and coverage vary, that cancellation is not guaranteed, and the paper leaves finite-length and finite-wire-thickness validation to detailed modelling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any aperture obtainable by a conformal map made of positive-power terms in $z$ plus a $1/z$ term, the same $J_z\propto \cos(n\theta)/|\zeta'(z)|$ recipe gives an analytic current distribution for the corresponding harmonic; the paper illustrates this on ellipse, triangle, square, and rectangle.
CCT windings on quasi-polygonal formers can be specified directly from the multipole content, so combined-function magnets (several harmonics at once) are obtained by adding sinusoidal terms to the axial pitch modulation.
A quasi-square bore of the same field gradient encloses a larger area than a circular bore with only a slight increase in stored energy per unit area, so polygonal apertures do not sacrifice much efficiency.
The framework reduces the design of non-circular CCT magnets to closed-form winding equations, removing the need to re-optimize coil-block positions for each new aperture shape.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A testable extension is to apply the same construction with a non-uniform turn spacing $w(\theta)$ chosen to match $|\zeta'(z)|$ exactly, which may reduce the discretization error of the discrete winding compared with the constant-pitch path used in the paper.
Because the proof of harmonic purity relies on the continuous sheet, a real finite-turn coil will generate small higher-order harmonics through the $m\neq 0$ Fourier terms of the delta-function expansion in Appendix A; the magnitude of these harmonics should grow as the polygonal shape deviates from circular, so a practical design rule would set a tolerance on shape distortion.
The same conformal-mapping recipe could be used to design CCT corrector magnets for higher-order multipoles ($n\ge 4$) in polygonal bores, or to generate skew harmonics by swapping $\sin(n\theta)$ for $\cos(n\theta)$ in the pitch modulation, although the paper only demonstrates low-order normal harmonics.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing you should know: the core idea is worth taking seriously, but the quasi-triangle and quasi-square sections have a load-bearing mapping inconsistency. The method—conformal mapping plus the current-density transform J_z ~ cos(nθ)/|ζ'|—is standard and works cleanly for the elliptical case, where the result matches Schnizer's elliptic-cylinder solution. That part is correct and well presented. The extension to genuinely new geometries (triangle, square) is where the trouble starts.

The paper defines the triangular mapping in Eq. 16 as ζ = z²/c + c²/z (n=2), but the potential expansions in Eq. 18 (with terms up to ρ³) are exactly what you get from the rotated mapping ζ = -z³/c² + c²/z (n=3). For the stated mapping, Re[ζ] should be (ρ²/c) cos 2θ + (c²/ρ) cos θ, not -ρ³/c² cos 3θ + c²/ρ cos θ. Similarly, the square mapping in Eq. 20 is given as -z³/c² + c²/z (n=3), but the domain restrictions and critical radius for the square use c⁴/ρ⁴, consistent with n=4. So the derivations do not match the geometries they are supposed to describe. This is not a cosmetic typo: the claimed current distributions for the quasi-triangular and quasi-square apertures are simply not derived for those apertures. A designer following the stated mappings would get unintended harmonics, and the paper's own Biot-Savart check is only qualitative—no quantitative harmonic decomposition is shown, so the inconsistency is hidden.

What the paper does well: the general framework is clearly explained, the elliptical case is rigorous and properly cited, and the CCT winding path formulation (Eq. 25) is a reasonable way to approximate the smooth current sheet. The energy-versus-area comparison for quasi-square apertures is a useful design consideration. The authors are also honest that finite length and wire thickness require detailed numerical modeling.

But the mapping mismatch undermines the central claim for the two new geometries. The reader's take flagged the potential issue only vaguely; the stress-test note correctly identifies it as concrete and load-bearing. This needs major revision before the paper can be trusted. A referee should ask for a corrected mapping (either fix Eq. 16 to the rotated cubic or re-derive the potentials) and a quantitative Biot-Savart harmonic decomposition. Who gets value from this? Accelerator magnet designers interested in non-circular bores—the elliptical case is a useful reference, and the general approach is promising. But as written, I would not cite the quasi-polygon results. Send it to peer review, with the clear expectation of heavy revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents an analytical framework for designing superconducting magnets with quasi-polygonal apertures. The authors use conformal maps from a circular current shell to elliptical, quasi-triangular, quasi-square, and quasi-rectangular shells, and argue that a surface current density Jz proportional to cos(nθ)/|ζ'(z)| on the mapped shell produces a pure circular harmonic Re[ζ^n] inside the aperture. They then propose CCT winding paths given by X=Re ζ(ρ0,θ), Y=Im ζ(ρ0,θ), Z=wθ/(2π)+(A_n/n)sin(nθ), and approximate the discrete winding by a smooth surface current. The paper claims verification by Biot-Savart recomputation for idealized infinitely long CCT coils and concludes that the method provides analytic starting points for engineering design.

Significance. If the central construction is correct, the paper gives a useful closed-form method for designing non-circular accelerator magnet apertures with specified circular harmonics, extending CCT technology beyond circular formers. A strength of the paper is that no parameters are fitted to validation data: the design is inverse, with the target harmonic chosen first and the current distribution derived, and the Biot-Savart check is an independent recomputation. The conformal-mapping route, including the 1/|ζ'| rescaling of line-current densities, is mathematically standard and internally coherent once the map choices are fixed. The paper also honestly acknowledges that finite length and wire thickness require numerical follow-up. However, the triangular-map inconsistency in Section II.B and the absence of quantitative validation data for the claimed Biot-Savart check prevent the paper from being accepted in its current form; both issues are fixable.

major comments (3)

[II.B, Eqs. (16) and (18)] The quasi-triangle is defined by ζ(z)=z^2/c+c^2/z, but the harmonic potentials listed in Eq. (18), e.g. P cosΘ = -(ρ^3/c^2) cos3θ + (c^2/ρ) cosθ, are the expansions for the rotated cubic map ζ=-z^3/c^2+c^2/z, not for Eq. (16). For the stated map with z=ρ e^{iθ}, one obtains P cosΘ = (ρ^2/c) cos2θ + (c^2/ρ) cosθ. Since Eq. (19) is presented as following directly from Eq. (18), the derivation for the quasi-triangular shell as defined in the paper is not supplied. This must be corrected, either by replacing Eq. (16) with the map actually used in Eq. (18) or by recomputing Eq. (18) for Eq. (16). Direct expansion of Re ζ^n for Eq. (16) suggests that the final form Jz∼cos nθ/|ζ'| for n=1,2,3 may still be recovered, so the central idea is likely salvageable, but the published derivation must be consistent.
[III, Biot-Savart check (page 9)] The text states that an idealized, infinitely long CCT coil with thin wires was checked with the Biot-Savart law and that the presence and correctness of the field harmonics were confirmed, but no quantitative result of this check is reported. The field-line plots in Figs. 8, 11, 13, and 16 illustrate the field topology but do not quantify the relative amplitudes of the desired and spurious harmonics. Since the central engineering claim is that the winding path in Eq. (25) realizes the ideal surface current of Eq. (19), the authors should add at least one quantitative validation, such as a harmonic decomposition as a function of the number of wires per period or of the pitch w. Without such data, the CCT portion of the paper remains a proposal rather than a demonstrated construction.
[III, Eq. (29) and following Eq. (26)] The cancellation of the constant azimuthal current density JΘ=I/w between layers is argued from alternating tilt angles. For circular formers this is exact because both layers lie on the same cylindrical surface, but for quasi-polygonal formers the local surface normal and arc length vary with θ, and the two layers are not on the same surface, so exact cancellation is not automatic. The paper appropriately states at the end of Section III that finite length and wire thickness require detailed modeling, but the residual JΘ effect for non-circular formers should be analyzed or explicitly included in the same caveat. This does not invalidate the ideal current-sheet construction, but it limits the engineering claim to an idealized starting point.

minor comments (4)

[II.B, nomenclature] The label 'quasi-n-polygonal' is confusing: Eq. (16) with n=2 produces a 3-fold quasi-triangle and Eq. (20) with n=3 produces a 4-fold quasi-square, so the number of sides is n+1. Please clarify the notation or relabel the maps to avoid confusion between the polynomial degree and the number of sides.
[Eqs. (17) and (21)] The formulas for the cut domain contain typesetting errors: for example, 'c/21/3' should be c/2^{1/3}, and the expression '1/2 arcsin c^4/ρ^4 − 1/2' needs parentheses to be unambiguous.
[Eq. (13)] The line 'Ao_z = Ai_z' appears twice in the same equation, and the intended distinction between the exterior and interior branches of the potential in the z-plane should be stated with distinct symbols.
[Figures 8, 11, 13, 16] The field-harmonic figures would be easier to evaluate if they included a quantitative color scale and, for the validation cases, a harmonic-bar chart; the current figures are schematic only.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework is an honest inverse-design construction (target harmonic chosen, conformal mapping derives the current distribution, CCT winding follows, and the Biot-Savart check is an independent recomputation). The quasi-triangle Eqs. 16/18 mismatch is a real internal consistency error, but it is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central derivation is an inverse-design construction rather than a fit dressed up as a prediction. Section II chooses the desired circular harmonic A_i^z = a_i P^n cos(nΘ) inside the mapped aperture, pulls the potential back to the z-plane through the conformal map, determines the circular-shell current from the negative-power terms via the standard boundary relation (Eqs. 3, 11-13), and maps the current back with the 1/|ζ'(z)| line-density factor (Eqs. 14-15, 19). That the constructed J_z ∝ cos(nθ)/|ζ'| regenerates Re[ζ^n] inside is a consequence of the construction itself, and the Section III Biot-Savart check is an independent line-current recomputation of the same idealized model, not a fit of amplitude parameters; no fitted input is later renamed a prediction. The elliptical case is explicitly benchmarked against independent literature ([13], elliptic-cylindrical intrinsic solutions), and the only self-citation, ref. [1] (co-author K. Zhu), supports an illustrative beam-profile remark and is not load-bearing. The paper also honestly states the engineering limits: "Given the finite longitudinal length of the actual CCT magnet and the non-negligible wire thickness, directly adopting winding parameters from analytical expressions is inadequate," and Appendix A concedes that no concise Helmholtz solution exists for quasi-polygonal formers. One genuine defect must be flagged, although it is a correctness gap rather than circularity: the quasi-triangle example is internally inconsistent. Eq. 16 defines the triangle by ζ(z) = z²/c + c²/z, but the potential expansions in Eq. 18, e.g. P cosΘ = −(ρ³/c²)cos3θ + (c²/ρ)cosθ, are exactly Re[ζ^n] for the rotated cubic mapping ζ = −z³/c² + c²/z (whose real part is −(ρ³/c²)cos3θ + (c²/ρ)cosθ), whereas Eq. 16 gives Re ζ = (ρ²/c)cos2θ + (c²/ρ)cosθ. Hence the claim "Based on these expressions, the current distribution in a quasi-triangular shell for the corresponding circular field harmonics inside is given by: Jz ∼ cos nθ/|ζ′(z)|, for n = 1, 2, 3" (Eq. 19) is demonstrated for the rotated mapping, not for the stated Eq. 16 geometry; the derivation chain for the stated triangle is broken (missing support), but a broken chain is not a circular one. Weighting all of this, the paper is essentially non-circular, and the score of 1 reflects only these minor, non-load-bearing caveats.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework relies on standard conformal mapping and Poisson equation results. The only tunable quantities are geometric and winding design parameters, none of which are fitted to data. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unproven step is the smooth-sheet approximation for CCT windings on non-circular formers, which the paper flags as requiring detailed modeling.

free parameters (4)

c (conformal map scale) = 1 by default
Sets the size and shape of the quasi-polygonal aperture; it is a dimensional and geometric design choice, not fitted to data. The derivation is valid for any c.
ρ0 (former radius in z-plane) = between c/2^(1/3) and c (triangle), between c/3^(1/4) and c (square)
Chosen to keep the mapped quasi-polygon convex and non-self-intersecting; it trades aperture shape against circularity. Not fitted to data.
A_n (CCT modulation amplitude) = free design choice
Sets the strength of the n-th harmonic; chosen by the designer for the target field. Not fitted.
w (winding pitch per period) = free design choice
Engineering parameter controlling wire packing and current density; chosen for manufacturability. Not fitted.

assumptions (5)

standard math Conformal invariance of the 2D Poisson equation with line sources
Eq. 5 states that a 2D Poisson equation transforms with source scaling 1/|ζ'|^2, and line sources scale as 1/|ζ'|. This is standard complex analysis, assumed without proof.
standard math The desired field inside the aperture is written as Re[ζ^n]
Re[ζ^n] is harmonic because ζ is analytic; this representation is used throughout Part 2 to define circular field harmonics in the mapped coordinates.
domain assumption The proposed quasi-polygonal mappings are conformal and one-to-one on the chosen constrained domains
The mappings ζ=z^n/c^(n-1)+c^2/z and ζ=-z^n/c^(n-1)+c^2/z are asserted to map the cut annulus onto the aperture interior; the paper does not prove univalence on the domains defined by Eqs. 17 and 21.
domain assumption The CCT winding can be approximated by a smooth surface current density
Eqs. 26-29 replace discrete helical wires by a uniform surface current, assuming tightly packed windings and cancellation of the solenoidal component between layers.
domain assumption The validation is performed for an idealized infinitely long thin-wire coil
The Biot-Savart check is for an infinite, thin-wire model; finite-length and finite-wire effects are deferred to future engineering modeling.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generation of circular field harmonics in quasi-polygonal magnet apertures using superconducting canted-cosine-theta coils." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EDV4TNIZ

@misc{pith2026241116068,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generation of circular field harmonics in quasi-polygonal magnet apertures using superconducting canted-cosine-theta coils},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EDV4TNIZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16068}
}

read the original abstract

Superconducting magnets with non-circular apertures are important for handling unconventional beam profiles and specialized accelerator applications. This paper presents an analytical framework for designing superconducting accelerator magnets with quasi-polygonal apertures, aimed at generating precise circular field harmonics. In Part 1, we explore the relationship between current distributions on quasi-polygonal formers and their corresponding magnetic field harmonics. By employing conformal mapping techniques, we establish a connection between the design of quasi-polygonal bore magnets and traditional circular bore configurations, facilitating the simplification of complex mathematical formulations. Part 2 applies the derived current distributions to the canted cosine theta (CCT) coil magnet concept, focusing on designing analytic winding schemes that generate single or mixed circular harmonics within quasi-polygonal apertures. This work not only advances the design of superconducting magnets but also broadens the scope of CCT technology to accommodate more complex geometries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16068 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: The current densities on a circular shell to produce the first 3 circular field harmonics inside an circular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: The Zhukovskii transformation maps a set of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: The thick red circle in the right image (thick [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (12 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: The current densities on an elliptical shell to produce the first 3 circular field harmonics inside an elliptical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: A set of transformations resulting in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: The outer blue circle in the right image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: The current densities on a quasi-triangular shell to produce the first 3 circular field harmonics inside a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9: The outer blue circle in the right image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10: The thick red circle in the right image (thick [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11: The current densities on a quasi-square shell to produce the first 3 circular field harmonics inside a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12: Stored energy and closed area as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13: Design of a rectangular former. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: FIG. 14: Spread the CCT (Canted Cosine Theta) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: FIG. 15: A local coordinate system to calculate the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_15.png]

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: FIG. 17: Approximation of the current distribution of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

M. J. Wu, D. Y. Li, J. G. Zhu, T. Yang, X. Y. Hu, Y. X. Geng, K. Zhu, M. J. Easton, Y. Y. Zhao, A. L. Zhang, H. Y. Lu, W. J. Ma, C. Lin, and X. Q. Yan, Emittance measurement along transport beam line for laser driven protons, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 23, 031302 (2020)

work page 2020
[2]

N. R. White, U3ds, a compact mass-analyzer for large high current-density ribbon ion beams, in 2016 21st In- ternational Conference on Ion Implantation Technology (IIT) (2016) pp. 1–4

work page 2016
[3]

Huang and X

Y. Huang and X. Hu, High mass resolution low aberration analyzer magnet for ribbon beams and the system for ribbon beam ion implanter (2010)

work page 2010
[4]

Y. Chen, W. You, J. Lu, Y. Tong, L. Zhou, B. Wu, E. Mei, W. Feng, X. Ou, W. Wu, Q. Yao, P. Yang, Y. Yu, and Z. Sun, Design of a large-scale supercon- ducting dipole magnet for the cee spectrometer (2024), arXiv:2409.02030 [physics.ins-det]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[5]

Y. Yang, S. Matsuba, K. Mizushima, T. Fujimoto, Y. Iwata, E. Noda, M. Urata, T. Shirai, G. Nishi- jima, S. Takayama, S. Amano, T. Maeto, T. Orikasa, K. Nakanishi, and Y. Hirata, Design and test of a 0.4-m long short model of a conduction-cooled superconducting combined function magnet for a compact, rapid-cycling heavy-ion synchrotron, Nuclear Instruments...

work page 2023
[6]

Russenschuck, Design of accelerator magnets 10.5170/CERN-2005-004.118 (2005)

S. Russenschuck, Design of accelerator magnets 10.5170/CERN-2005-004.118 (2005)

work page doi:10.5170/cern-2005-004.118 2005
[7]

Meyer and R

D. Meyer and R. Flasck, A new configuration for a dipole magnet for use in high energy physics applications, Nu- clear Instruments and Methods 80, 339 (1970)

work page 1970
[8]

Caspi, F

S. Caspi, F. Borgnolutti, L. Brouwer, D. Cheng, D. R. Dietderich, H. Felice, A. Godeke, R. Hafalia, M. Martchevskii, S. Prestemon, E. Rochepault, C. Swen- son, and X. Wang, Canted–cosine–theta magnet (CCT)—a concept for high field accelerator magnets, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 24, 1 (2014)

work page 2014

Show all 16 references

[9]

Complex analysis methods for magnet design, in Field Computation for Accelerator Magnets (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2010) Chap. 9, pp. 327–362

2010
[10]

Hassani, Complex calculus, in Mathematical Physics: A Modern Introduction to Its Foundations (Springer In- ternational Publishing, Cham, 2013) pp

S. Hassani, Complex calculus, in Mathematical Physics: A Modern Introduction to Its Foundations (Springer In- ternational Publishing, Cham, 2013) pp. 295–337

2013
[11]

K. F. Riley, M. P. Hobson, and S. J. Bence, Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering: A Comprehensive Guide, 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2006)

2006
[12]

V. I. Ivanov and M. K. Trubetskov, Handbook of con- formal mapping with computer-aided visualization (CRC press, 1994)

1994
[13]

Schnizer, Advanced multipoles for accelerator mag- nets, Springer Tracts Modern Physics 277 (2017)

P. Schnizer, Advanced multipoles for accelerator mag- nets, Springer Tracts Modern Physics 277 (2017)

2017
[14]

L. N. Brouwer, Canted-cosine-theta superconducting ac- celerator magnets for high energy physics and ion beam cancer therapy, Ph.d. dissertation, University of Califor- nia, Berkeley (2015)

2015
[15]

Ortwein and G

R. Ortwein and G. Kirby, Parametric FEM modeling of multilayer castellated canted cosine theta (CCT) mag- nets, 34, 055008 (2021)

2021
[16]

Simona, Numerical methods for the simulation of par- ticle motion in electromagnetic fields , Ph.D

A. Simona, Numerical methods for the simulation of par- ticle motion in electromagnetic fields , Ph.D. thesis, Po- litecnico di Milano, Technische Universit¨ at Darmstadt, Darmstadt (2020)

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

M. J. Wu, D. Y. Li, J. G. Zhu, T. Yang, X. Y. Hu, Y. X. Geng, K. Zhu, M. J. Easton, Y. Y. Zhao, A. L. Zhang, H. Y. Lu, W. J. Ma, C. Lin, and X. Q. Yan, Emittance measurement along transport beam line for laser driven protons, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 23, 031302 (2020)

work page 2020

[2] [2]

N. R. White, U3ds, a compact mass-analyzer for large high current-density ribbon ion beams, in 2016 21st In- ternational Conference on Ion Implantation Technology (IIT) (2016) pp. 1–4

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Huang and X

Y. Huang and X. Hu, High mass resolution low aberration analyzer magnet for ribbon beams and the system for ribbon beam ion implanter (2010)

work page 2010

[4] [4]

Y. Chen, W. You, J. Lu, Y. Tong, L. Zhou, B. Wu, E. Mei, W. Feng, X. Ou, W. Wu, Q. Yao, P. Yang, Y. Yu, and Z. Sun, Design of a large-scale supercon- ducting dipole magnet for the cee spectrometer (2024), arXiv:2409.02030 [physics.ins-det]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[5] [5]

Y. Yang, S. Matsuba, K. Mizushima, T. Fujimoto, Y. Iwata, E. Noda, M. Urata, T. Shirai, G. Nishi- jima, S. Takayama, S. Amano, T. Maeto, T. Orikasa, K. Nakanishi, and Y. Hirata, Design and test of a 0.4-m long short model of a conduction-cooled superconducting combined function magnet for a compact, rapid-cycling heavy-ion synchrotron, Nuclear Instruments...

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Russenschuck, Design of accelerator magnets 10.5170/CERN-2005-004.118 (2005)

S. Russenschuck, Design of accelerator magnets 10.5170/CERN-2005-004.118 (2005)

work page doi:10.5170/cern-2005-004.118 2005

[7] [7]

Meyer and R

D. Meyer and R. Flasck, A new configuration for a dipole magnet for use in high energy physics applications, Nu- clear Instruments and Methods 80, 339 (1970)

work page 1970

[8] [8]

Caspi, F

S. Caspi, F. Borgnolutti, L. Brouwer, D. Cheng, D. R. Dietderich, H. Felice, A. Godeke, R. Hafalia, M. Martchevskii, S. Prestemon, E. Rochepault, C. Swen- son, and X. Wang, Canted–cosine–theta magnet (CCT)—a concept for high field accelerator magnets, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 24, 1 (2014)

work page 2014