Design study of a normal conducting helical snake for AGS
A new normal conducting snake magnet is being fabricated for the alternate gradient synchrotron (AGS) at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). In the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) project, a superconducting type helical dipole magnets had been developed and it performed successfully in high-energy polarized proton acceleration. The new AGS helical snake has the same basic magnetic structure but is more complicated. To achieve no beam shift and no beam deflection in one magnetic device, helical pitches and rotating angles were carefully calculated. Compared to a superconducting magnet, a normal warm magnet must have a large cross-sectional area of conductors which make it difficult to design a magnet with large helical pitch. We developed a modified window frame structure to accommodate the large number of conductors. Its three dimensional magnetic field was simulated by using OPERA3D/TOSCA.
SUPERCONDUCTING HELICAL SNAKE MAGNETS: CONSTRUCTION AND MEASUREMENTS.
In order to collide polarized protons, the RHIC project will have two snakes in each ring and four rotators around each of two interaction regions. Two snakes on opposite sides of each ring can minimize depolarization during acceleration by keeping the spin tune at a half. Since the spin direction is normally along the vertical direction in a flat ring, spin rotators must be used around an interaction point to have longitudinal polarization in a collider experiment. Each snake or rotator will be composed of four helical dipoles to provide the required rotation of spin with minimal transverse orbit excursions in a compact length of 10m. The basic helical dipole is a superconducting magnet producing a transverse dipole field which is twisted about the magnet axis through 360{degree} in a length of 2.4 m. The design and construction of the magnets is described in this paper.
The Vascular Theory of Migraine‐Resuscitated or More Moribund?
Your decision to publish an important paper on cerebral blood flow (CBF) in migraine1 as the first in Headache for 1989 is to be applauded. But does it clarify or cloud the issue? After 20 years of CBF studies in migraine the results show 1) a reduction of at least 25 30% in classical migraine1, 2) an average increase of 31% in common and classical migraine2, 3) or no change in common migraine3. Now we learn that the measurements need modifying by 40% to allow for scattering of radiation the Compton scatter effect which has led to "an unbalanced interpretation of the data"1 So the results are as contradictory as they can be, the measurements require adjustment, and the interpretation is therefore doubly doubtful. From the clinical point of view the neurological aura, the enlarging scotoma, the scintillations, the migration of the paraesthesiae up the arm or visual disturbances across the visual field, have not been seen in cerebrovascular disease.4 The headache is throbbing in only 47% of 750 patients questioned during a migraine5; but even when the pain is pulsatlie, it throbs for only a portion of the time at the maximum of the headache (Blau unpublished observations). The evidence for a neurological aetiology has been examined6: the most potent argument against a vascular cause is that the common triggers stress, light and hunger go direct to the nervous system, not via blood vessels. No one denies that vascular changes occur in migraine but are they primary or secondary to a neurological disturbance? Sokoloff7 concluded that the stimulated rat and monkey cortex showed increased glucose uptake, and that the increased local blood flow occurred "in response (my italics) to changes in local functional activity". The evidence, therefore, points to an underlying neurological basis with secondary vascular responses. The vascular theory may need resuscitation but who is going to give it the kiss of life?