Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:55:33.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The comparison of the elements for the homogenizing charged particle irradiation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

J.H. Li*
Affiliation:
China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China
X.Y. Ren
Affiliation:
China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Jinhai Li, China Institute of Atomic Energy, P.O. Box 275-17, Beijing 102413, China. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Particle beams with uniform and well-confined intensity distributions are desirable in some high power beam applications to prolong the target lifetime or to improve the beam utilization. Three kinds of elements had been proposed for the beam homogenizing, such as octupole, pole-piece magnet, and step-like nonlinear magnets. In this paper, the new type of elements called heteromorphic quadrupole and focus sextupole are proposed. The Gaussian-like multiparticle beam redistribution by the octupole, heteromophic quadrupole, step-like nonlinear magnets, and focus sextupole has been simulated by the POISSON and LEADS code. The best redistribution result is obtained by the focus sextupole, and one of the solutions of redistributing beam with big halo can be that of using the focus sextupole and the heteromorphic quadrupole.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barlow, D., Shafer, R., Martinez, R., Kahn, S., Jain, A. & Wanderer, P. (1997). Magnetic design and measurement of nonlinear multipole magnets for the APT beam expander system. http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/pac97/papers/pdf/7P036.PDF.Google Scholar
Billen, J.H. & Young, L.M. (1993). POISSON/SUPERFISH on PC. compatibles. Proc. of the 1993 Particle Accelerator Conference, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.Google Scholar
Blind, B. (1991). Production of uniform and well-confined beams by nonlinear optics. Nucl. Instr. Meth. B 56/57, 10991102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinkmann, R., Raimondi, P. & Seryi, A. (2001). Halo reduction by means of non linear optical elements in the nlc final focus system. Proc. of 2001 Particle Accelerator Conference, Chicago: Illinois.Google Scholar
Jason, A.J. & Blind, B. (1997). Beam expansion with specified final distribution. Proc. of 1997 Particle Accelerator Conference, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.Google Scholar
Kashy, E. & Sherrill, B. (1987). A method for the uniform charged particle irradiation of large targets. Nucl. Instr. Meth. 26, 610613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J.H. & Ren, X.Y. (2011). Expand and improving the LEADS code for the dynamics design and multiparticle simulation. Chinese Physics C 35, 293295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, J.Q. (1995). LEADS: A graphical display computer program for linear and electrostatic accelerator beam dynamics simulation. Nucl. Instr. & Meth. A 355, 253.Google Scholar
Meads, P.F. (1983). A nonlinear lens system to smooth the intensity distribution of a Gaussian beam. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. NS30, 2838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meot, F. & Aniel, T. (1996). Principles of the nonlinear tuning of beam expanders. Nucl. Instr. Meth. A 379, 196205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitthan, R. (2000). SLAC-PUB-8402.Google Scholar
Tang, J.Y., Li, H.H., An, S.Z. & Maier, R. (2004). Distribution transformation by using step-like nonlinear magnets. Nucl. Instr. Meth. A 532, 538547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varentsov, D., Tkachenko, I.M. & Hoffmann, H.H.D. (2005). Statistical approach to beam shaping. Phys. Rev. E 71, 066501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed