Radio Frequency Acceleration in Particle Accelerators

In summary: The klystron itself produces RF with a rather broader band. This is not good for particle acceleration, because the wider the frequency range, the poorer the quality of the accelerated beam (i.e. it will be accelerated over a larger energy spread). So the RF from the klystron goes into a resonant cavity (or a series of resonant cavities such as in a LINAC) that has been tuned to a particular frequency that matches the central frequency from the power source. Depending on how narrow of a band the resonant cavity can accept, there will be a narrow frequency range that can exist inside the cavity.
  • #36
ZapperZ said:
I'm out of this one till it gets back on-topic.

What I want to know is, what happened to @General Scientist , the OP of the thread? It seems that @artis has commandeered and taken over the topic. I still want to know if the OP have first understood the basic principles of a RF accelerating structure and mechanism, before jumping into the superconducting scenario.

Zz.

Sorry, I have been off working on schoolwork. I am trying to learn about how the radiofrequency waves accelerate the cavity in the first place. On google most mentions referred to superconductivity. I was wondering whether it was only possible with superconducting cavitites.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
General Scientist said:
how the radiofrequency waves accelerate the cavity
They don't. They accelerate the ions traveling through the cavity at the peak of the RF cycle. Each cavity they pass through gives them another kick. That's in simple terms of course. The phase of the a RF into each cavity has to be synchronised with the arrival of the bunch of ions so that they increase their speed at each cavity. You need to get all that stuff sorted out before you start to consider superconductivity in any of the components.
 
  • #38
Sorry, that's what I meant. Do you know of any resources for understanding this? As far as I know, wikipedia doesn't have a page on rf cavities without superconductivity involved.
 
  • #39
Normal conducting cavities are like superconducting cavities just with larger losses. The Wikipedia article doesn't even mention superconductors explicitly.
 
  • #40
General Scientist said:
Sorry, that's what I meant. Do you know of any resources for understanding this? As far as I know, wikipedia doesn't have a page on rf cavities without superconductivity involved.
It is unlikely that any PF member can point you at a source that totally suits your (or anyone's) particular optimum level. The only way to find out anything like this is to do much more reading around. Search Engines tend to put the most popular or timely links first. If you want something basic then you have to look further down the list of hits. What you seem to be after is not just Popular Science level and that's where most of Google's leading hits are pitched. We all get this problem.
 
  • #42
sophiecentaur said:
It is unlikely that any PF member can point you at a source that totally suits your (or anyone's) particular optimum level. The only way to find out anything like this is to do much more reading around. Search Engines tend to put the most popular or timely links first. If you want something basic then you have to look further down the list of hits. What you seem to be after is not just Popular Science level and that's where most of Google's leading hits are pitched. We all get this problem.
Ok, thanks for all of your help. :smile:
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
345
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
600
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top