- #31
- 32,812
- 4,723
artis said:
But it doesn’t explain why you keep going on and on and on and on about klystrons when it isn’t part of the topic.
Like I said, I’m done trying to shepherd the discussion back on topic.
Zz.
Radio Frequency Acceleration in Particle Accelerators
- Context: Undergrad
- Thread starter General Scientist
- Start date
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion centers on the role of radio frequency (RF) cavities in particle accelerators, particularly focusing on superconducting RF cavities, their operational principles, and the implications of resonance in particle acceleration. Participants explore both theoretical and practical aspects of RF cavities, including their design and efficiency in accelerating particles.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Technical explanation
- Debate/contested
- Mathematical reasoning
Main Points Raised
- Some participants inquire about the fundamental operation of superconducting RF cavities and whether superconductivity is necessary for their function.
- Others argue that while superconductivity is not essential, it enhances energy efficiency, making large accelerators more feasible.
- One participant suggests that RF cavities amplify radio waves through resonance, while another clarifies that amplification is not the correct term, emphasizing the role of resonance in creating voltage peaks.
- Questions arise regarding how to calculate the resonance frequency of the cavities and the relationship between particle velocity and resonance.
- Participants discuss the importance of matching the RF power source frequency to the cavity's resonant frequency to optimize particle acceleration.
- There is mention of klystrons as primary RF sources in particle accelerators, with some participants questioning their continued use and the potential role of semiconductors.
- Concerns are raised about the engineering and economic considerations in the design of accelerating structures, particularly regarding the materials used.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on the necessity and function of superconductivity in RF cavities, the nature of resonance, and the appropriateness of klystrons versus semiconductors in particle accelerators. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives presented.
Contextual Notes
Participants note that the design and tuning of RF cavities are critical due to the high costs associated with building these structures. There are also references to the broader applications of particle accelerators beyond high-energy physics, indicating a diverse range of operational contexts.
Who May Find This Useful
This discussion may be useful for those interested in particle physics, engineering of particle accelerators, and the technical challenges associated with RF cavity design and operation.
But it doesn’t explain why you keep going on and on and on and on about klystrons when it isn’t part of the topic.
Like I said, I’m done trying to shepherd the discussion back on topic.
Zz.
- #32
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 30,374
- 7,466
How could you have been wrong? That describes the basic function of any transmitter.artis said:
I have a strong feeling that you would rather try to justify your preconceptions than to learn more relevant stuff about the basic topic of the question. Forget where the RF power that feeds the accelerator comes from (i.e. the klystron) and just get a hold of the basics of the accelerator - which could use any source of RF Power if it could produce enough Power.
- #33
mfb
Mentor
- 37,414
- 14,250
Start your own thread about klystrons then please.artis said:
- #34
- 32,812
- 4,723
I'm out of this one till it gets back on-topic.
What I want to know is, what happened to @General Scientist , the OP of the thread? It seems that @artis has commandeered and taken over the topic. I still want to know if the OP have first understood the basic principles of a RF accelerating structure and mechanism, before jumping into the superconducting scenario.
Zz.
What I want to know is, what happened to @General Scientist , the OP of the thread? It seems that @artis has commandeered and taken over the topic. I still want to know if the OP have first understood the basic principles of a RF accelerating structure and mechanism, before jumping into the superconducting scenario.
Zz.
- #35
mfb
Mentor
- 37,414
- 14,250
I removed three posts not about RF cavities that were made after my last post and will do this with future posts as well. The previous posts were a mixture of off-topic and on-topic discussion, splitting the thread would leave a mess in both threads.ZapperZ said:
- #36
General Scientist
- 39
- 3
ZapperZ said:
Sorry, I have been off working on schoolwork. I am trying to learn about how the radiofrequency waves accelerate the cavity in the first place. On google most mentions referred to superconductivity. I was wondering whether it was only possible with superconducting cavitites.
- #37
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 30,374
- 7,466
They don't. They accelerate the ions traveling through the cavity at the peak of the RF cycle. Each cavity they pass through gives them another kick. That's in simple terms of course. The phase of the a RF into each cavity has to be synchronised with the arrival of the bunch of ions so that they increase their speed at each cavity. You need to get all that stuff sorted out before you start to consider superconductivity in any of the components.General Scientist said:
- #38
General Scientist
- 39
- 3
Sorry, that's what I meant. Do you know of any resources for understanding this? As far as I know, wikipedia doesn't have a page on rf cavities without superconductivity involved.
- #39
mfb
Mentor
- 37,414
- 14,250
Normal conducting cavities are like superconducting cavities just with larger losses. The Wikipedia article doesn't even mention superconductors explicitly.
- #40
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 30,374
- 7,466
It is unlikely that any PF member can point you at a source that totally suits your (or anyone's) particular optimum level. The only way to find out anything like this is to do much more reading around. Search Engines tend to put the most popular or timely links first. If you want something basic then you have to look further down the list of hits. What you seem to be after is not just Popular Science level and that's where most of Google's leading hits are pitched. We all get this problem.General Scientist said:
- #41
- 32,812
- 4,723
https://www.classe.cornell.edu/~dugan/USPAS/
These are lecture notes from a US Particle Accelerator School, which was how many Accelerator scientists learned the material.
Zz.
These are lecture notes from a US Particle Accelerator School, which was how many Accelerator scientists learned the material.
Zz.
- #42
General Scientist
- 39
- 3
Ok, thanks for all of your help.sophiecentaur said:
Similar threads
- · Replies 5 ·
- · Replies 11 ·
- · Replies 9 ·
- · Replies 9 ·
Graduate
Linear particle accelerator design
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 13 ·
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 17 ·
- · Replies 45 ·