Difference between revisions of "Feb 7 2024"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
* Max, Gabriel, Alicia: Parameter variation studies. The nominal values above give good agreement with the R28 model; the smooth transition at the junction gives minimum field enhancement at the lip and has been shown not to cause problems due to the protruding edge (Sajini's design). | * Max, Gabriel, Alicia: Parameter variation studies. The nominal values above give good agreement with the R28 model; the smooth transition at the junction gives minimum field enhancement at the lip and has been shown not to cause problems due to the protruding edge (Sajini's design). | ||
− | ** Pierce angles, junction angles: [[media:20240206_pierce_beamsize.pdf|Beam envelopes]] // [[20240206_pierce_focallength.pdf|Focal length vs. spot position]] -- no major optical difference between junction angles, just changes focal length; 16/30 model is closest to R28. | + | ** Pierce angles, junction angles: [[media:20240206_pierce_beamsize.pdf|Beam envelopes]] // [[media:20240206_pierce_focallength.pdf|Focal length vs. spot position]] -- no major optical difference between junction angles, just changes focal length; 16/30 model is closest to R28. |
** Anode tilt with nominal parameters, same angle as R30-3 (2°): [[media:20240206_anode_tilt_comparison.pdf|Beam envelopes]] // [[media:20240206 anode tilt focallength.pdf|Focal length vs. spot position]] -- worth keeping, no adverse effects, partial cancellation of downward kick | ** Anode tilt with nominal parameters, same angle as R30-3 (2°): [[media:20240206_anode_tilt_comparison.pdf|Beam envelopes]] // [[media:20240206 anode tilt focallength.pdf|Focal length vs. spot position]] -- worth keeping, no adverse effects, partial cancellation of downward kick | ||
** +/- 0.2 mm hole size: [[media:20240206_hole_beamsize.pdf|Beam envelopes]] // [[media:20240206_hole_focallength.pdf|Focal length vs. spot position]] -- suggest at most +/- 0.1 mm machining tolerance (final part after polishing etc.) | ** +/- 0.2 mm hole size: [[media:20240206_hole_beamsize.pdf|Beam envelopes]] // [[media:20240206_hole_focallength.pdf|Focal length vs. spot position]] -- suggest at most +/- 0.1 mm machining tolerance (final part after polishing etc.) |
Revision as of 14:45, 6 February 2024
From last time
- Carlos will incorporate into the time line a potential vent and electrode swap in case of failure to HV-condition or get the beam out (by no means anticipated, but good to know how long it would take)
- Max, Gabriel, and Alicia will complete simulations of:
- shallow junction angle
- tolerance bands around nominal values, especially cathode recess, to evaluate injector acceptance (see parameter table from last meeting).
- Final checks: tilted anode, biased anode, 140 kV
- Deadline to define Pierce angle: Today. Max, Alicia.
- Deadline to provide Keith Harding with the chosen models (TWO Pierce angle options): Friday, February 9, 2024. Max, Gabriel.
- February 13, 2024. Present before the B-Team meeting the strategy followed for arriving at the optimized Pierce angle. Max and Alicia.
- Geometrical parameters downselect
Table of parameters
Parameter | Unit | Nominal value | Fabrication uncertainty | Simulation band | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hole inner radius | mm | 6.4135 | +/- 0.3? | +/- 0.3 | to edge of actual metal, as measured with caliper |
Pierce angle | ° | 16 | ? | +/- 2 | |
Cone/sphere junction angle | ° | 30 | ? | 30 -- 62 | was 62°; smooth transition = 26.971° |
Cathode recess | mm | 0.188 | 0.05 | 0.1 | from Keith's drawing; error may be larger for old pucks |
Cathode tilt | ° | 0 | +/- 0.5 | 1 | |
Laser spot size (RMS) | mm | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
Updates
- Max, Gabriel, Alicia: Parameter variation studies. The nominal values above give good agreement with the R28 model; the smooth transition at the junction gives minimum field enhancement at the lip and has been shown not to cause problems due to the protruding edge (Sajini's design).
- Pierce angles, junction angles: Beam envelopes // Focal length vs. spot position -- no major optical difference between junction angles, just changes focal length; 16/30 model is closest to R28.
- Anode tilt with nominal parameters, same angle as R30-3 (2°): Beam envelopes // Focal length vs. spot position -- worth keeping, no adverse effects, partial cancellation of downward kick
- +/- 0.2 mm hole size: Beam envelopes // Focal length vs. spot position -- suggest at most +/- 0.1 mm machining tolerance (final part after polishing etc.)
- Important to control. Keep radius small to reduce tolerance of longitudinal distance between edge and photocathode surface.
- +/- 0.1 mm recess: Beam envelopes // Focal length vs. spot position -- less-than-nominal recess gives unduly long focal length (note, variation is twice the limit from comparative stack-up drawing)
- could increase focusing (e.g., 1° more Pierce angle)
- but history indicates focal length tends to be shorter than simulated, i.e., more recess
- unlikely to be operationally problematic
- Alicia: What phase-space parameters are desirable? (simulations done with R30-4 candidate phase spaces)
- Carlos:
- Sent an un-polished 25 deg Pierce cathode front end to CMM to measure outer diameter and hole size. These are expected to indicate if these dimensions changed compared to a mechanically polished piece.
- Keith Harding is ready to produce the drawing of the new cathode Pierce angle from end. He says a sketch with dimensions will be easier to model than receiving a step file.
Path forward, conclusions
- Max, Alicia: Present at the upcoming Team meeting (2/13/24) strategy followed to solve the R30-3 focusing problem?