Cyclotrons and Fixed-Field Alternating-Gradient Accelerators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes particle accelerators using magnets whose field strengths are fixed in time to steer and focus ion beams in a spiral orbit so that they pass between (and can be accelerated by) the same electrodes many times. The first example of such a device, Lawrence's cyclotron, revolutionized nuclear physics in the 1930s, but was limited in energy by relativistic effects. To overcome these limits two approaches were taken, enabling energies of many hundreds of MeV/u to be reached: either frequency-modulating the rf accelerating field (the synchrocyclotron) or introducing an azimuthal variation in the magnetic field (the isochronous or sector-focused cyclotron). Both techniques are applied in fixed-field alternating-gradient accelerators (FFAGs), which were intensively studied in the 1950s and '60s with electron models. Technological advances have made possible the recent construction of several proton FFAGs, and a wide variety of designs is being studied for diverse applications with electrons, muons, protons and heavier ions. All fixed-field accelerators offer high beam intensity: classical and isochronous cyclotrons operate in cw mode and in some cases deliver beams of 2 mA; synchrocyclotrons and most FFAGs operate in pulsed mode, but are capable of much higher pulse repetition rates (≤ kHz) than synchrotrons.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".