Difference between revisions of "Mar 13, 2020 Meeting Minutes"

From Ciswikidb
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "==Emails/attachments sent during the previous week== *Email chain subject name: Ion energy consumption from Bethe's original article (1930) **Date: Mar 2-4, 2020 **Description...")
 
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==Emails/attachments sent during the previous week==
 
==Emails/attachments sent during the previous week==
−
*Email chain subject name: Ion energy consumption from Bethe's original article (1930)
+
*Email chain subject name: Investigating EField on axis between 0.1 and 0.3
−
**Date: Mar 2-4, 2020
+
**Date: Mar 9, 2020
−
**Description: Josh sent a translated/transcribed version of "Theory of the passage of fast corpuscular rays through matter," which has a detailed description of ion energies after ionization
+
**Description: Josh sent plots of Ez vs z between 0.1 and 0.3m to see if there is indeed a bump in the electric field. These plots showed no bump in the e-field, even at small stepsizes. Cristhian said that one possible reason for a bump in his e-field plots is because he is solving the E-field using Neumann boundary conditions at the end of the beamline.
  
 
==Post-meeting notes==
 
==Post-meeting notes==
−
* Josh presented ion energy analysis - GPT simulations of single bunch with fixed parameters. Simulations were made with the ionization as is, with the energy of the ion unchanged, secondary electrons on/off, and with space charge on/off.
+
* Josh presented GPT simulations of a single bunch going through stationary ions to see the effect of space charge
−
* Need to make bunch with long length for DC bwaem
+
* Need to check CST model's accuracy
−
* Need to make higher bunch charge to see the effects of space charge - perhaps a single bunch going through stationary ions
+
* Need to make histograms of particle energies as standard output
−
* Removing NEGs makes a big difference in the electric field profile of the CEBAF photogun
+
* Make the time step different after the electron bunch passes through the ions
−
* Need to check e-field for 0.1<=z<=0.25m - Cristhian showed that there is a bump in the e-field on axis in that range.
+
* Make DC beam simulations (i.e. through 100us)
−
* Perhaps use Maxwellian distribution of ions with 3-4eV. Cristhian will share his C++ routine for creating this Maxwellian distribution.
+
* Make DC ion beam instead of electron beam? (w/ higher timestep)
  
 
[[Ionization Effects Meetings | Return to Ionization Effects Meetings]]
 
[[Ionization Effects Meetings | Return to Ionization Effects Meetings]]
  
 
[[Weekly phone call - Mar 13, 2020 | Go to Meeting Page]]
 
[[Weekly phone call - Mar 13, 2020 | Go to Meeting Page]]

Latest revision as of 14:38, 24 March 2020

Emails/attachments sent during the previous week

  • Email chain subject name: Investigating EField on axis between 0.1 and 0.3
    • Date: Mar 9, 2020
    • Description: Josh sent plots of Ez vs z between 0.1 and 0.3m to see if there is indeed a bump in the electric field. These plots showed no bump in the e-field, even at small stepsizes. Cristhian said that one possible reason for a bump in his e-field plots is because he is solving the E-field using Neumann boundary conditions at the end of the beamline.

Post-meeting notes

  • Josh presented GPT simulations of a single bunch going through stationary ions to see the effect of space charge
  • Need to check CST model's accuracy
  • Need to make histograms of particle energies as standard output
  • Make the time step different after the electron bunch passes through the ions
  • Make DC beam simulations (i.e. through 100us)
  • Make DC ion beam instead of electron beam? (w/ higher timestep)

Return to Ionization Effects Meetings

Go to Meeting Page

Retrieved from "https://wiki.jlab.org/ciswiki/index.php?title=Mar_13,_2020_Meeting_Minutes&oldid=19822"