Reply To: Computational resources available from the DOE

[zapkitty]

Joeviocoe wrote:

Lerner mentioned that sputtering (causing the deformation of the electrodes and requiring monthly replacement/re-depositing)… would increase again a bit going from Tungsten to Beryllium.

1) But what about electrode vaporization for Beryllium from 2.8 MA of current? Would that undo much of the benefits for going from Copper to Tungsten?

Yes, but while tungsten’s properties of hardness and heat resistance will be very helpful in the next, intermediate, stages of research that same tungsten will become worse than useless as the x-ray flux approaches breakeven conditions.

The x-rays will take out the tungsten. And then tungsten everywhere except where it’s supposed to be.

… but the LPP team intends to use this time with the tungsten to, among other things, learn the best techniques for reducing the runaway electrons that do so much to erode the electrodes.

The plan is that when they finally have to switch to beryllium that what they’ll have learned from working with the tungsten will help them keep the Be erosion to manageable levels.

Joeviocoe wrote: 2) Would Beryllium electrodes cause impurities which reduce yield? (even though the atomic mass is 7 times lighter than copper)

If they can’t keep the erosion levels down then it’ll become a moot point.

Joeviocoe wrote: 3) Would the Beryllium electrodes need a thin surface plating of Tungsten… … Or would that thin surface absorb too much X-Rays and burn up?

Per Lerner it would vaporize and crack the electrode surfaces.