Feb 7 2024

From Ciswikidb
Revision as of 15:45, 6 February 2024 by Bruker (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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?


Return to 200 kV Gun page