Is a Ring Accelerator the Same as a Cyclotron?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Focus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Accelerator Ring
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between ring accelerators and cyclotrons, exploring their definitions, differences, and operational principles. Participants examine various types of accelerators, including synchrocyclotrons and synchrotrons, and provide insights into their functionalities and historical context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that a cyclotron is an early type of ring accelerator that does not account for relativistic effects, limiting its energy capabilities.
  • Others suggest that the term "synchrocyclotron" is more appropriate for modern applications, as it incorporates relativistic corrections.
  • One participant mentions that the Tevatron and similar accelerators are often referred to as "synchrotrons," indicating a potential overlap in terminology.
  • A distinction is made between early cyclotrons, which used solid disks, and modern synchrotrons, which can adjust magnetic fields to maintain particle paths without filling the center.
  • Another participant describes the betatron as a true ring accelerator and provides historical context about the original cyclotron design, including its use of "D"-shaped electrodes and alternating potential.
  • There is a discussion about the operational differences between cyclotrons, synchrocyclotrons, and synchrotrons, particularly regarding their accelerating mechanisms and energy capabilities.
  • One participant emphasizes that cyclotrons and synchrotrons may not function as "accelerators" in the technical sense, as particles may coast in the ring after initial acceleration.
  • Another participant recalls the original cyclotron's design, highlighting the importance of alternating voltage in accelerating particles before relativistic effects become significant.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the definitions and functionalities of ring accelerators and cyclotrons, indicating that multiple competing views remain without a clear consensus on the distinctions between these types of accelerators.

Contextual Notes

Some claims depend on specific definitions of terms like "accelerator" and the operational principles of different accelerator types, which may not be universally agreed upon. The discussion also reflects varying levels of understanding regarding the historical development and technical specifications of these machines.

Focus
Messages
285
Reaction score
3
Is a ring accelerator the same as a cyclotron? If not can someone please tell me somthing about ring accelerator, or send me links where I can find some information about ring accelerators.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A cyclotron (properly speaking) is an early type of ring accelerator, that does not attempt to compensate for relativistic effects as the particles move faster and faster. Therefore it's limited to rather low energies.

A better term to search for (in Google, e.g.) is "synchrocyclotron" which does incorporate relativistic corrections.

The biggest modern examples of synchrocyclotrons are at Fermilab in the USA and at CERN in Switzerland.
 
I've usually heard the Tevatron and similar accelerators referred to as just "synchrotrons", but it must mean the same thing.

One important difference is that a cyclotron (at least the first ones) were solid disks rather than rings. A constant magnetic field is used to create the circular motion, and the particles spiral out as they accelerate. In the modern synchrotrons the magnetic field can be adjusted so the particles always travel in the same path. This means the accelerator can be just the ring, instead of having to fill in the middle. When the machine is many kilometers across it's obviously better to use the second option :)
 
Ok thanks a bunch
 
Yes, "synchrotron" is a shortened version of "synchrocyclotron". It's probably the more common version now.
 
The betatron probably qualifies as a true ring accelerator -
http://www.physics.uiuc.edu/General_Info/History/Betatron.htm

The original cyclotrons consisted of "D"-shaped hollow electrodes with an alternating potential across the gap between the D's. The flat parts of the D faced each other. The D's were placed between the poles of large magnets, and the magnetic field, oriented perpendicular to the plane of the D's, caused the ions to move in circular orbits, starting in the center and moving outward as the energy increased. The polarity of the electrodes was changed with radiofrequency alternating voltage source.
See also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron

A synchrocyclotron is simply a cyclotron with the accelerating supply frequency decreasing as the particles become relativistic and begin to lag behind. Although in principle they can be scaled up to any energy they are not built any more as the synchrotron is a more versatile machine at high energies. [CERN]
Also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrocyclotron

The synchrotrons are the largest machines which incorporate magnets oriented in a ring or loop, now several km/miles in circumference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron

See this for Fermilabs accelerators - http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/physics/accelerators/

As for Wikipedia - no endorsement of the accuracy is expressed or implied, but the pictures are OK.
 
But take note that cyclotrons and synchrotrons typically are not "accelerators" in the technical sense. The electrons are simply "coasting" in the ring after they come out of the injector. There are no accelerating mechanism.

This is different than what we have at, let's say, the Tevatron, where in the booster ring, you do have accelerating structures that give the particles a kick every time they pass through.

Zz.
 
As I recall, the classic cyclotron (Lawrence's original design) had the particle orbits enclosed in a pair of facing hollow "dees", with a gap between them, with the whole assembly between the magnet pole faces. An alternating potential difference between the dees gave the particles (which must have had to travel in bunches) a kick every time they passed through the gap.

The big insight that led to the cyclotron was the realization that the orbital period doesn't depend on the energy, in the non-relativistic regime, so a simple alternating voltage with a suitable frequency would accelerate the particles, at least until relativistic effects become significant.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
915
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K