Difference between revisions of "August 14, 2020 Meeting Minutes"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with " ==Post-meeting notes== *To be added... Return to Ionization Effects Meetings Go to Meeting Page") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Post-meeting notes== | ==Post-meeting notes== | ||
| − | * | + | *Josh presented results from benchmarking simulations - showed screen data and histograms of ion damage at the photocathode. GPT results are slightly different from the Travel simulations, since the field map strengths weren't consistent. |
| + | **Will try new simulation using uniform distribution with 6mm radius to figure out the initial positions of particles that transmit (accepted) through the beamline. Maybe use DC beam? | ||
| + | *Cristhian and Ricardo showed that most secondary secondary electrons due to secondary electron yield do not make it through the anode aperture. Need to add this aperture to GPT simulations | ||
Latest revision as of 16:21, 17 August 2020
Post-meeting notes
- Josh presented results from benchmarking simulations - showed screen data and histograms of ion damage at the photocathode. GPT results are slightly different from the Travel simulations, since the field map strengths weren't consistent.
- Will try new simulation using uniform distribution with 6mm radius to figure out the initial positions of particles that transmit (accepted) through the beamline. Maybe use DC beam?
- Cristhian and Ricardo showed that most secondary secondary electrons due to secondary electron yield do not make it through the anode aperture. Need to add this aperture to GPT simulations