I was wondering how the design of the FF chamber was done. Is the design dictated by by a known ‘best form’ analytic solution, or was it arrived at through modelling a variety of designs in simulation, and choosing the best?
A ask because, over the years, I’ve had great success in using iterative simulations to arrive at great (not just good) designs for circuits & systems; even when there’s no gradient to follow. I wonder if the same approach might prove useful in the design of the FF chamber, electrode design & placement. Especially as more information on sub-systems (boundary conditions to the simulation) become clearer. Using what you find out now to refine the conditions data used in the simulation could yield a better design.
I know that you folks have placed a lot of emphasis on building software to simulate the process. I just wonder if you’ve used that to help iterate your way to a best design. Putting a PC to work doing a drunkard’s walk through a solution space could yield some surprises. Especially as you continue to refine ‘its’ understanding of system by feeding it hard (empirical) data. CPU time is cheap!
Just a thought…
Pat
.
.