About your first remark, to clarify...
Considering your case:
End time(s) : 0.01s
Beam dynamics : 1e-5s
-> Transient simulation time = 1000 steady-state one.
if you include correction:
start time: 0.0025s
step : 0.0001 s
-> 25 corrections
So you have to add to Transient simulation time: 25 x number_of_iteration x steady-state time
Now, you have also to add the transient cavity simulation (integration step = 1e-7) : 100000 step.
The general scheme is as follows
- synoptic.png (44.33 KiB) Viewed 5310 times
Your doubts :
(1) Yes it's the same except a very important point. When you adjust the RF phase of field of the cavity, it reacts with its filling time and the following cavity is influenced by the resulting beam variation + its own adjustments. It is therefore very complex to how the whole system will react.In fact I'm not sure that this is how it should be done in reality, but when these developments were made, I didn't have time to develop a specific procedure so I used the one I had at hand, the steady state one.
A last more general remark, at the end of this study made for MYRRHJA, we all considered, despite the encouraging results, that it was better to stop the machine for a few seconds to finally restart it with the steady-state results.
Indeed, it seemed too complex to implement on a real machine and above all it did not solve the problem of longitudinal acceptance. Indeed, it is not enough to find the right phase and energy of the beam by adjusting cavities, it is also necessary to do it while minimizing the reduction of the acceptance.
(2) Below, what I observe with your example, I do not find what you indicate
- ieration.png (81.77 KiB) Viewed 5310 times
(3) I think it's impossible
Regards,
Didier
