REVIEW 1 cited by
NbTi/Nb/Cu multilayer shield for the superconducting shield (SuShi) septum
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
A passive superconducting shield was proposed earlier to realize a high-field (3-4 T) septum magnet for the Future Circular Collider. This paper presents the experimental results of a potential shield material, a NbTi/Nb/Cu multilayer sheet. A cylindrical shield was constructed from two halves, each consisting of 4 layers with a total thickness of 3.2~mm, and inserted into the bore of a spare LHC dipole corrector magnet (MCBY). At 4.2~K, up to about 3.1~T at the shield's surface only a leakage field of 12.5~mT was measured inside the shield. This can be attributed to the mis-alignment of the two half cylinders, as confirmed by finite element simulations. With a better configuration we estimate the shield's attenuation to be better than $\mathbf{4\times 10^{-5}}$, acceptable for the intended application. Above 3.1~T the field penetrated smoothly. Below that limit no flux jumps were observed even at the highest achievable ramp rate of more than 50~mT/s at the shield's surface. A 'degaussing' cycle was used to eliminate the effects of the field trapped in the thick wall of the shield, which could otherwise distort the homogeneous field pattern at the extracted beam's position. At 1.9~K the shield's performance was superior to that at 4.2~K, but it suffered from flux jumps.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
A compact frozen-spin trap for the search for the electric dipole moment of the muon
A compact frozen-spin muon trap design that projects a sensitivity of 4e-21 e·cm (Phase I) and 6e-23 e·cm (Phase II), improving the current muon EDM limit by up to three orders of magnitude.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.