Difference between revisions of "Mar 13, 2020 Meeting Minutes"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Post-meeting notes== | ==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 | ||
| + | * 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) | ||
[[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]] | ||
Revision as of 14:37, 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
- 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)