Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Tuning methods for multigap drift tube linacs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For multigap drift-tube linacs, integrating the beam's first and second moments through the cavity field, together with a beam-based rf amplitude calibration, predicts output energies to about 1 percent.

desk verdict Practical DTL tuning method with a real validation gap: the 1% accuracy claim may be in-sample and is at the diagnostic limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12502 v1 pith:IGUNCKUS submitted 2025-04-16 physics.acc-ph physics.app-phphysics.comp-ph

Olivier Shelbaya , Rick Baartman , Peter Braun , Paul Matthew Jung , Oliver Kester , Thomas Planche , Holger Podlech , Stephanie Diana Radel This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.acc-phphysics.app-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords drifttubelinacmultigapcavityenvelopecodebeam-basedcalibrationrfphaseandamplitudevariableenergyoperationIHstructurelongitudinalbeamdynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Multigap drift-tube linacs lack a closed-form relation between cavity voltage and phase and the beam's output energy, so operators must find rf settings by measurement or heavy particle tracking. This paper claims that integrating the beam's centroid and its spread and correlations (the first and second moments) through the measured on-axis electric field, together with a beam-based linear calibration between the machine's rf amplitude and the model's field scaling, supplies that missing relation. The result is a fast online recipe: for a requested output energy and energy spread, the computation returns the cavity phase and amplitude in under a second. Validation with a 23Na6+ beam at a variable-energy drift-tube linac puts predicted energies within about 1 percent of on-line readings.

What carries the argument

The machine that carries the argument is the envelope-code integration of beam moments: a Hamiltonian-based set of first-order equations $d\sigma/ds = F\sigma + \sigma F^T$ for the 6x6 covariance matrix $\sigma$, together with tracking of the reference particle's time and energy through the on-axis field $E(s)$. From these, the code forms a continuous transit-time factor $T(s)$ and a field-weighted synchronous phase $\varphi_w(s)$, so the multigap cavity is represented without imposing an a priori phase or velocity. A second load-bearing piece is the beam-based calibration: a linear fit between the machine's rf amplitude reading and the model voltage $V$, obtained from operational energy readings at a dispersive energy station; the fit is only trusted above a certain amplitude and must be redone if the rf amplifier changes. Optimization adds constraints on the longitudinal momentum spread and on the transfer-matrix combination $M_{21}+M_{43}+M_{65}$, which minimizes accumulated transverse rf focusing.

What would settle it

Take a series of energy measurements at the dispersive station for several rf amplitudes spanning the operating range, each with the phase re-optimized by the model; if the measured energies trace a curve that departs from the linear calibration fit by more than about 1 percent, or if repeating the same amplitude after a temperature or amplifier change shifts the residual, the calibration premise fails and the claimed accuracy does not extend to those conditions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that once the transit-time-factor formula $V\cos\theta$ loses validity—because a particle's velocity changes by tens of percent across many gaps—the correct energy-versus-settings map is obtained by numerically integrating, in the envelope code TRANSOPTR, the reference particle's coordinates and the 6x6 covariance matrix of the beam through the cavity's axially symmetric on-axis field $E(s)$. The paper shows that this map, combined with a linear calibration between the control-system rf amplitude and the model voltage $V$, is enough to optimize the rf phase and amplitude for any desired output energy while minimizing longitudinal momentum spread and transverse rf focusing. Applied to a 15-gap interdigital-H structure, the optimization converges in 36 iterations, about 0.8 s on a conventional computer, and the predicted energies match dispersive measurements of a 23Na6+ beam to roughly 1 percent or better.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the straight-line fit between the machine's rf amplitude dial and the model's cavity voltage remains correct for all the phases, amplitudes, and beam tunes used in operation; if that calibration drifts or bends, every predicted energy and phase setting inherits the error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A requested output energy change can be computed in under a second, replacing iterative ramp-and-measure tuning for multigap linacs.
  • Any drift-tube linac can use the method once its on-axis electric field is known from bead-pull measurements or field simulation, so the approach transfers to other multigap accelerators.
  • The same calibration supports passive monitoring: unexpected drift between model-predicted and measured energy flags a change in the beam, cavity, or rf equipment.
  • The method's validity is bounded by the linearization: bunches longer than about 1 cm (or $\omega\delta t > \pi/4$) are outside the region where the envelope equations accurately represent the energy spread.
  • Constraining the transfer-matrix elements $M_{21}+M_{43}+M_{65}$ lets the IH cavity act almost as a drift in free space, simplifying the transverse optics for variable-energy operation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 1 percent agreement is reported only in the operational region above the calibration threshold; an untested implication is that the same accuracy does not hold at low rf amplitudes where multipacting makes the calibration nonlinear.
  • The crescent-shaped region of good longitudinal beam quality at high amplitude in the parameter scans suggests an operating regime the paper does not pursue; a follow-up with stronger transverse focusing could test it.
  • Because the calibration is amplifier-specific and the paper does not quantify its time drift, a natural extension is to monitor the residual between model and measured energy continuously and re-fit the slope automatically, turning the calibration into a closed-loop system.
  • The linearization limit ($\omega\delta t > \pi/4$) predicts a concrete boundary: measurements of energy spread for bunches longer than about 1 cm should show growing disagreement with the envelope model; a direct experiment at that bunch length would test the method's stated range.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a tuning method for multigap drift tube linacs, in which the first and second moments of the beam distribution are integrated through the measured on-axis rf field using the envelope code TRANSOPTR. The method is illustrated with a two-gap cavity, where an analytic formula is recovered, and with the 15-gap IH Tank-3 of the TRIUMF ISAC-DTL, where the output energy versus rf phase and amplitude is nonlinear. A beam-based linear calibration between the EPICS rf amplitude and the model field scaling is introduced, and a constrained optimizer is used to compute the rf phase and amplitude for a desired output energy and minimized momentum spread. The paper reports validation with 23Na6+ beam energy measurements and claims roughly 1% or better agreement with on-line readings.

Significance. If fully validated, the method would be practically useful: it replaces multigap transit-time-factor approximations with a fast envelope calculation, gives a calibration procedure that connects control-system rf readings to model voltages, and runs optimizations in under a second. The envelope equations are standard, the two-gap analytic check is a useful sanity test, and the authors are candid about the linearization limit of the method. However, the experimental support for the headline accuracy claim is currently incomplete: the validation appears to rely on the same fitted calibration used to build the model, the energy diagnostic's absolute uncertainty equals the claimed accuracy, and the energy-spread part of the claim is not directly measured. The central methodology is defensible, but the evidence for its predictive accuracy needs substantial strengthening before the Section V claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV.A, Figs. 10 and 13] The paper does not establish that the beam-energy readings used for validation are disjoint from those used to fit the linear calibration. Section IV.A states that the calibration uses 'operational tunes, rf amplitudes and energy readings', and Fig. 13 then compares model predictions, made using that calibration, with on-line energy measurements. If the same readings enter both the calibration fit and the comparison, the reported 'roughly 1% or less' agreement in Section V is partially in-sample and does not demonstrate predictive power. Please report the number of calibration points and validation points, state explicitly that the validation settings were not used in the calibration, or provide a leave-one-out or cross-validation analysis. In addition, the diagnostic station has an absolute energy error of 1% (Section IV.A), equal to the claimed accuracy; the manuscript should state how the 1% claim accounts for this instrument limit, since the measurement cannot otherwise resolve whether the model error is 1%, much smaller, or dominated by the diagnostic.
  2. [IV.B, Fig. 13 and Section V] The abstract and Section V claim that the method returns cavity amplitude and phase for a desired output beam energy and energy spread, and the optimization explicitly uses the longitudinal constraint of Eq. (20). However, the experimental validation in Fig. 13 compares only beam energy centroids, not the output energy spread. The 'model prediction for the energy spectra' shown in red are Gaussians based on the longitudinal tune from Ref. [16], not a direct measurement of the delivered energy spread. Either add a measured comparison of the output energy spread for the validation points, or limit the validation claim to reference-particle energy and state that the energy-spread behavior is demonstrated only in simulation.
  3. [II.B and Fig. 13] The method's stated linearization limit is that the nonlinearity of the sinusoidal rf cannot be taken into account and that bunches with ωδt > ~π/4, or z > ~1 cm, cannot be accurately represented. The paper uses this limit to black out regions in the parameter scans of Figs. 5 and 7, but it does not report the bunch length or rf phase extent at the tank exit for the validation points in Fig. 13. Without this information, the reader cannot confirm that the online validation was performed inside the valid linear regime. Please report the relevant longitudinal bunch parameters for the measured settings, or otherwise demonstrate that the linear envelope approximation is valid for the operating conditions used in the validation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The definition of z appears incomplete: 'z = δtβ0c = , and z′...' has a missing expression after the equals sign. Please supply the full definition and the sign convention used in TRANSOPTR.
  2. [Eq. (21)] The constraint is written as 'M21 + M43 + M65 = 2M21 + M65', which is only valid if M43 = M21. If this relies on the radial symmetry of the cavity and equal horizontal and vertical focusing, state that assumption explicitly; otherwise the optimizer condition is mis-specified.
  3. [IV.A, first sentence] The sentence 'Using operational tunes, rf amplitudes and energy readings have been used to calibrate machine and model' is grammatically incomplete and should be revised.
  4. [Fig. 10] Please add the number of calibration points, the uncertainties on both axes, the fit residuals or correlation coefficient, and the rf-amplitude range used; this is needed to judge the quality of the linear calibration that underlies the validation.
  5. [Figs. 5 and 7] The criterion for the blacked-out regions is described as 'where the 2rms bunch length exceeds 1 cm' in Fig. 5, while the text in Section II.B gives the limit z > ~1 cm and ωδt > ~π/4. Please align these statements and define z consistently so the reader can reproduce the masking criterion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The ~1% energy agreement may be in-sample: the Fig. 10 beam-based calibration is fitted from energy readings, and the Fig. 13 "prediction" is explicitly based on that calibration, with no stated disjoint validation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV.A (Beam-Based Amplitude Calibration) and Section IV.C, Fig. 13]
    "Using operational tunes, rf amplitudes and energy readings have been used to calibrate machine and model. Figure 10 shows the recorded control system rf amplitudes and corresponding model V necessary to achieve optimum energy gain (minimized δP/P)... The dotted red lines show the model predicted energies for the bunch center to first order, based on the amplitude calibration of Fig. 10."

    The calibration is constructed from measured output energies: for each operational rf setting, the model field scaling V is set so that TRANSOPTR reproduces the energy reading at optimum energy gain. Fig. 13 then validates the model by comparing predicted energies "based on the amplitude calibration of Fig. 10" with the same type of energy-station measurements. The paper does not state that the Fig. 13 measurements are a fresh, disjoint set, nor does it describe a leave-one-out or cross-validation procedure. Consequently, the reported ~1% agreement can simply reflect the calibration reproducing its own input energies, rather than an out-of-sample test of the envelope model.

full rationale

The core method—tracking first and second beam moments through the measured on-axis rf field—is a legitimate, independent physics calculation and is not imported by self-citation. The two-gap analytic derivation (Section III.A) and the 15-gap parameter scans are self-contained. The only load-bearing loop is the calibration/validation pair: Section IV.A fits the model V versus EPICS-amplitude relation using beam energy readings, and Section IV.C/Fig. 13 uses that same calibration to "predict" energies. Because the paper never demonstrates disjoint datasets or an out-of-sample procedure, the central quantitative claim is not shown to be independent. This is a partial rather than total circularity: if the Fig. 13 data are genuinely separate operational points, the issue reduces to a missing statement of independence. The many self-citations to prior TRANSOPTR work are normal tool/method citations, not circular load-bearing arguments. The 1% absolute energy-diagnostic uncertainty also equals the claimed accuracy, further limiting how strongly the validation can support the headline number, though that is a precision concern rather than a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation relies on standard envelope and Hamiltonian beam-dynamics assumptions, on the fidelity of the on-axis field maps from OPERA/CST, on the linearization of rf forces for short bunches, and on a fitted linear calibration between machine rf amplitude and model voltage. No new physical entities are introduced. The fitted calibration is the most important free input; the other assumptions are standard domain assumptions with stated validity ranges.

free parameters (2)
  • Linear calibration slope (EPICS rf amplitude to model V) = not stated numerically
    Fit in Section IV A, Fig. 10, using operational tunes and energy readings; every online optimization and the validation of Fig. 13 depend on this conversion.
  • Linear calibration intercept = nonzero, value not stated
    The paper says the linear fits do not intercept zero because of multipacting at low excitation; the model is only used above rf amplitude roughly 300.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Hamiltonian and symplectic envelope equations for first and second moments (eqs. 5, 8, 11) with covariance propagation (eq. 10).
    Standard beam-dynamics formalism from Courant-Snyder, Sacherer, and Brown, used without proof.
  • domain assumption Linearized rf forces are sufficient; valid only when bunch length z <~ 1 cm (omega delta t <~ pi/4).
    Stated as a limitation in Section II B; parameter regions outside this range are blacked out in Fig. 5.
  • domain assumption The on-axis electric field E(s), from OPERA 2D and CST-MWS, represents the real cavity including the dipole stem perturbation.
    Section III and the summary say the model is entirely represented by on-axis E(s); if the field maps are wrong, predicted energies and phases are wrong.
  • domain assumption The beam-based calibration remains valid across tunes and over time.
    Section IV A states the calibration is unique to each rf amplifier and must be repeated if equipment changes; drift would invalidate predicted settings.
  • domain assumption The bunch center and the synchronous reference particle coincide longitudinally.
    Stated caveat in Section IV C; the first-order model assumes this, and it is only approximately true in operation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tuning methods for multigap drift tube linacs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IGUNCKUS

@misc{pith2026250412502,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tuning methods for multigap drift tube linacs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IGUNCKUS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12502}
}
read the original abstract

Multigap cavities are used extensively in linear accelerators to achieve velocities up to a few percent of the speed of light, driving nuclear physics research around the world. Unlike for single-gap structures, there is no closed-form expression to calculate the output beam parameters from the cavity voltage and phase. To overcome this, we propose to use a method based on the integration of the first and second moments of the beam distribution through the axially symmetric time-dependent fields of the cavity. A beam-based calibration between the model's electric field scaling and the machine's rf amplitudes is presented, yielding a fast online energy change method, returning cavity amplitude and phase necessary for a desired output beam energy and energy spread. The method is validated with 23Na6+ beam energy measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12502 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic representation of the ISAC-DTL, consisting of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Cross-sectional drawing of the third IH accelerating cavity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Top: on-axis electric field intensity for a 35 MHz two-gap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: , where the effects of rf defocusing are weakest in the locus of optimum energy gain, since the bunch is subjected to minimal restoring forces16 . The two effects can be combined by plotting the quadra￾ture sum of bunch length and transverse size. This is shown in [PI…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Output [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. TRANSOPTR (optr) model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. TRANSOPTR energy prediction for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Shelbaya, R

    O. Shelbaya, R. A. Baartman, and O. K. Kester, End-to-End RMS Envelope Model of the ISAC-I Linac , in Proc. IPAC'21 , pages 4183--4186, JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  3. [2]

    merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  4. [3]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence skip FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1 'skip if FUNCTION new.block.checka empty 'skip 'new.block if FUNCTION new.block.checkb...

  5. [4]

    merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  6. [5]

    merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  7. [6]

    merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  8. [7]

    Kester, T

    O. Kester, T. Sieber, S. Emhofer, F. Ames, K. Reisinger, P. Reiter, P. G. Thirolf, R. Lutter, D. Habs, B. H Wolf, et al., Accelerated radioactive beams from REX-ISOLDE , Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 204 , 20 (2003)

    work page 2003

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Barth, P

    W. Barth, P. Forck, J. Glatz, W. Gutowski, G. Hutter, J. Klabunde, R. Schwedhelm, P. Strehl, W. Vinzenz, D. Wilms, et al., Commissioning of IH-RFQ and IH-DTL for the GSI High-Current LINAC , in Proc. LINAC'00 , number 20 in Linear Accelerator Conference, pages 229--231, JACoW ...

    2000

  2. [9]

    G. Ball, I. Dillmann, A. Garnsworthy, G. Gwinner, R. Kanungo, G. Morris, Gerald, C. Ruiz, The TRIUMF-ISAC Facility: Recent Highlights in RIB Science and Future Prospects with ARIEL , Nuclear Physics News 30 , pages 27--32 (2020)

    2020

  3. [10]

    Blewett, Linear Accelerator Injectors for Proton Synchrotrons , in CERN Symposium on High-Energy Accelerators and Pion Physics , pages 159--166 (1956)

    J. Blewett, Linear Accelerator Injectors for Proton Synchrotrons , in CERN Symposium on High-Energy Accelerators and Pion Physics , pages 159--166 (1956)

    1956

  4. [11]

    Gerigk, Cavity types , in CERN Accelerator School: RF for Accelerators (2011)

    F. Gerigk, Cavity types , in CERN Accelerator School: RF for Accelerators (2011)

    2011

  5. [12]

    Laxdal, P

    R. Laxdal, P. Bricault, T. Reis, and D. Gorelov, A Separated Function Drift-Tube Linac for the ISAC Project at TRIUMF, in Proc. PAC'97 , IEEE, volume 1, pages 1194--1196, Vancouver, BC, Canada (1997)

    1997

  6. [13]

    Ratzinger, H

    U. Ratzinger, H. H \"a hnel, R. Tiede, J. Kaiser, and A. Almomani, Combined Zero Degree Structure Beam Dynamics and Applications , Physical Review Accelerators and Beams 22 , 114801 (2019)

    2019

  7. [14]

    C. Xiao, X. Du, and L. Groening, Investigations on KONUS Beam Dynamics Using the Pre-Stripper Drift Tube LINAC at GSI , in 14th International Conference on Heavy Ion Accelerator Technology , page WEOAA02 (2019)

    2019

  8. [15]

    W. K. H. Panofsky, Linear Accelerator Beam Dynamics , Technical Report URCL-1216, University of California Radiation Laboratory (1951)

    1951

  9. [17]

    Shelbaya, R

    O. Shelbaya, R. Baartman, and O. Kester, Fast radio frequency quadrupole envelope computation for model based beam tuning, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams 22 , 114602 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Dutto, K

    G. Dutto, K. Fong, R. Laxdal, G. Mackenzie, M. Pasini, R. Poirier and R. Ruegg, Beam Commissioning and First Operation of the ISAC DTL at TRIUMF , in Proc. PAC'01 , pages 3942--3944, JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland (2001)

    2001

  11. [19]

    R. E. Laxdal, P. Bricault, G. Dutto, K. Fong, G. H. Mackenzie, R. Poirier, W. Rawnsley, R. Ruegg and G. Stinson, First Beam Test with the ISAC Separated Function DTL , in Proc. LINAC'00 , pages 244--246, JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland (2000)

    2000

  12. [20]

    T. P. Wangler, RF linear accelerators , John Wiley & Sons (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    Lallement, Experience with the Construction and Commissioning of Linac4 , in 28th International Linear Accelerator Conference , page TU1A03 (2017)

    J.-B. Lallement, Experience with the Construction and Commissioning of Linac4 , in 28th International Linear Accelerator Conference , page TU1A03 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Shelbaya, T

    O. Shelbaya, T. Angus, R. Baartman, P. M. Jung, O. Kester, S. Kiy, T. Planche, S.D. R\"adel, Autofocusing Drift Tube Linac Envelopes, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams 24 , 124602 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Marchetto, J

    M. Marchetto, J. Berring, and R. E. Laxdal, Upgrade of the ISAC DTL Tuning Procedure at TRIUMF , in Proc. EPAC'08 , number 11 in European Particle Accelerator Conference, pages 3440--3442, JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    R. Baartman, Fast Envelope Tracking for Space Charge Dominated Injectors , in 28th International Linear Accelerator Conference , pages 1017-1021, JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    E. D. Courant and H. S. Snyder, Theory of the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron , Annals of Physics 3 , 1 (1958)

    1958

  18. [26]

    K. L. Brown, A First and Second Order Matrix Theory for the Design of Beam Transport Systems and Charged Particle Spectrometers , Adv. Part. Phys. , pages 71-134, also internal report SLAC-75 1 , 71 (1968)

    1968

  19. [27]

    Sacherer, RMS Envelope Equations with Space Charge , IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 18 , 1105 (1971)

    F. Sacherer, RMS Envelope Equations with Space Charge , IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 18 , 1105 (1971)

    1971

  20. [28]

    Heighway and R

    E. Heighway and R. Hutcheon, TRANSOPTR —A Second Order Beam Transport Design Code with Optimization and Constraints , Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research 187 , 89 (1981)

    1981

  21. [29]

    Baartman, TRANSOPTR: Changes Since 1984, Technical Report TRI-BN-16-06 , TRIUMF (2016)

    R. Baartman, TRANSOPTR: Changes Since 1984, Technical Report TRI-BN-16-06 , TRIUMF (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Shelbaya, R

    O. Shelbaya, R. Baartman, O. Kester, S. Kiy, and S. R\"adel, Model Coupled Accelerator Tuning With an Envelope Code, Proc. LINAC'22 , pages 549-551, JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Mitra and R

    A. Mitra and R. Poirier, A 35 MHz Spiral Re-Buncher Cavity for the TRIUMF ISAC Facility , in Proc. PAC'99 , volume 2, pages 839--841, IEEE (1999)

    1999

  24. [32]

    Shelbaya, The TRANSOPTR Model of the ISAC Drift Tube Linear Accelerator - Part I: Longitudinal Verification , Technical Report TRI-BN-20-08 , TRIUMF (2020)

    O. Shelbaya, The TRANSOPTR Model of the ISAC Drift Tube Linear Accelerator - Part I: Longitudinal Verification , Technical Report TRI-BN-20-08 , TRIUMF (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Shelbaya, TRANSOPTR Implementation of the MEBT Beamline , Technical Report TRI-BN-19-02 , TRIUMF (2019)

    O. Shelbaya, TRANSOPTR Implementation of the MEBT Beamline , Technical Report TRI-BN-19-02 , TRIUMF (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Fields, Opera-2d user guide , Vector Fields Limited, England (1999)

    V. Fields, Opera-2d user guide , Vector Fields Limited, England (1999)

    1999

  27. [35]

    CST-MWS , CST Studio Suite (CP Studio, Darmstadt, Germany) (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    Bylinsky, V

    Y. Bylinsky, V. Kukhtiev, P. Ostroumov, V. Paramonov, and R. E. Laxdal, A Triple Gap Resonator Design for the Separated Function DTL at TRIUMF , in Proc. PAC'97 , pages 1135--1137, JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland (1997)

    1997

  29. [37]

    Vasyuchenko, A

    A. Vasyuchenko, A. Feschenko, A. Kvasha, A. Menshov, V. Paramonov, Y. Bylinsky, G. Dutto, R. E. Laxdal, A. K. Mitra, R. Poirier, Development, Fabrication and Test of Triple Gap Split-Ring Bunchers for the TRIUMF ISAC Facility , in Proc. PAC'01 , pages 978--980, JACoW Publishin...

    2001

  30. [38]

    Dilling, R

    J. Dilling, R. Kr \"u cken, and G. Ball, Hyperfine Interactions 225 , 1 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    R. E. Laxdal, P. Bricault, G. Dutto, K. Fong,G. H. Mackenzie, R. Poirier, W. Rawnsley, First beam test with the ISAC Separated Function DTL, in Proc. 2000 Linac Conference (2000)

    2000

  32. [40]

    K. Fong, S. Fang, M. Laverty, J. Lu, and L. Poirier, Commissioning of the TRIUMF ISAC RF System , in Proc. PAC'01 , volume 2, pages 945--947, IEEE (2001)

    2001

  33. [41]

    Marchetto, R

    M. Marchetto, R. E. Laxdal, and F. Yan, Decelerating Heavy Ion Beams Using the ISAC DTL , in Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Heavy Ion Accelerator Technology (HIAT'09) , pages 261--265, JACoW Publishing (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Marchetto, ISAC-II Operation and Future Plans , in Proc

    M. Marchetto, ISAC-II Operation and Future Plans , in Proc. LINAC'08 , number 24 in Linear Accelerator Conference, pages 1--5, JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    P. N. Ostroumov, F. Casagrande, K. Fukushima, M. Ikegami, T. Kanemura, S. Kim, S. Lidia, G. Machicoane, T. Maruta, D. Morris, et al., Status of FRIB commissioning , in Proc. 64th ICFA Advanced Beam Dynamics Workshop on High-Intensity and High-Brightness Hadron Beams (HB 2021) ...

    2021

  36. [44]

    L. R. Dalesio, A. Kozubal, and M. Kraimer, EPICS architecture, Technical report LA-UR-91-3543 , Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States) (1991)

    1991

  37. [45]

    Marchetto, Z.T

    M. Marchetto, Z.T. Ang, K. Jayamanna, R.E. Laxdal, A. Mitra, V. Zvyagintsev, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 150 , 241 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Baartman, TRANSOPTR Reference Manual , Technical Report TRI-BN-22-08 , TRIUMF (2022)

    R. Baartman, TRANSOPTR Reference Manual , Technical Report TRI-BN-22-08 , TRIUMF (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Shelbaya, Preliminary Investigation of ISAC-I RF/Temperature Correlations and General Performance , Technical Report TRI-BN-17-24 , TRIUMF (2017)

    O. Shelbaya, Preliminary Investigation of ISAC-I RF/Temperature Correlations and General Performance , Technical Report TRI-BN-17-24 , TRIUMF (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Kiy, LLRF Phase Shifter Calibrations , Technical Report TRI-BN-20-19 , TRIUMF (2020)

    S. Kiy, LLRF Phase Shifter Calibrations , Technical Report TRI-BN-20-19 , TRIUMF (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Shelbaya and P

    O. Shelbaya and P. M. Jung, Generation of TRANSOPTR files with xml2optr , Technical Report TRI-BN-22-06 , TRIUMF (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    D. Y. Wang, H. Bagri, C. Macdonald, S. Kiy, P. M. Jung, O. Shelbaya, T. Planche, W. Fedorko, R. Baartman, O. Kester, Accelerator Tuning with Deep Reinforcement Learning , in Workshop at the 35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , Vancouver, BC, Canada (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.