Journal Article  

http://join2-wiki.gsi.de/foswiki/pub/Main/Artwork/join2_logo100x88.png
Parabolic versus elliptic focusing – Optimization of the focusing design of a cold triple-axis neutron spectrometer by Monte-Carlo simulations

 ;  ;

2011-00-
North-Holland Publ. Co. Amsterdam

Nuclear instruments & methods in physics research / A 647, 63 - 72 () [10.1016/j.nima.2011.04.022]

This record in other databases:

Please use a persistent id in citations: doi:

Abstract: We present Monte-Carlo simulations for the focusing design of a novel cold-neutron triple-axis spectrometer to be installed at the end position of the cold guide NL-1 of the research reactor FRM-II in Munich, Germany. Our simulations are of general relevance for the design of triple-axis spectrometers at end positions of neutron guides. Using the McStas program code we performed ray trajectories to compare parabolic and elliptic focusing concepts. In addition the design of the monochromator was optimized concerning crystal size and mosaic spread. The parabolic focusing concept is superior to the elliptic alternative in view of the neutron intensity distribution as a function of energy and divergence. In particular, the elliptical configuration leads to an inhomogeneous divergence distribution.

Keyword(s): Instrument and Method Development (1st) ; Others (1st) ; Instrument and Method Development (2nd)

Classification:

Note: KOMPASS Projekt; Record converted 2014-10-14 05:10:01

Contributing Institute(s):
  1. KOMPASS
Experiment(s):
  1. KOMPASS: Cold three axes spectrometer with polarization analysis (NL1)

Click to display QR Code for this record

The record appears in these collections:
Dokumenttypen > Aufsätze > Zeitschriftenaufsätze
Workflow collections > Öffentliche Einträge
Workflow collections > Publikationsdatenbank
Workflow collections > In Bearbeitung
Institutssammlungen > KOMPASS
Publications database

 Datensatz erzeugt am 2014-10-17, letzte Änderung am 2017-03-02


Externer link:
Volltext herunterladen
Volltext
Dieses Dokument bewerten:

Rate this document:
1
2
3
 
(Bisher nicht rezensiert)