Difference between revisions of "August 7, 2020 Meeting Minutes"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Post-meeting notes== | ==Post-meeting notes== | ||
| − | *Joe presented rad monitor calibration, i.e. incident electron current to # counts measured by the radiation monitors. Calibration: ~0.2 nA current per count. Also showed plots of beam loss vs # counts for | + | *Joe presented rad monitor calibration, i.e. incident electron current to # counts measured by the radiation monitors. Calibration: ~0.2 nA current per count. |
| + | **Also showed plots of beam loss vs # counts near each steering coil. Recall that there is an inverse correlation with the | ||
| + | *Cristhian presented results from simulations showing the compensation time for secondary electrons due to SEY. The secondary electron production rate flattens over time to a steady rate due to the ion damage rate equilibrating over time. The beam potential does not change over time due to ions, probably because the number of ions trapped within the beam potential is significantly lower than the number of ions in the primary electron beam. | ||
Revision as of 12:46, 10 August 2020
Post-meeting notes
- Joe presented rad monitor calibration, i.e. incident electron current to # counts measured by the radiation monitors. Calibration: ~0.2 nA current per count.
- Also showed plots of beam loss vs # counts near each steering coil. Recall that there is an inverse correlation with the
- Cristhian presented results from simulations showing the compensation time for secondary electrons due to SEY. The secondary electron production rate flattens over time to a steady rate due to the ion damage rate equilibrating over time. The beam potential does not change over time due to ions, probably because the number of ions trapped within the beam potential is significantly lower than the number of ions in the primary electron beam.