Mid-T heat treatments on BCP’ed coaxial cavities at TRIUMF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mid-T heat treatments in the range from 250°C to 400°C on superconducting radio-frequency (SRF) cavities have been shown to provide high quality factors that rise with applied rf field strength in high frequency, electro-polished (EP), elliptical cavities operating at 2 K, similar to nitrogen doped cavities. The rise in quality factor is attributed to a decrease in the temperature dependent part of the surface resistance RBCS. Until now, no results have been reported for these new treatments on quarter-wave resonators (QWR) and half-wave resonators (HWR). The TRIUMF multi-mode coaxial cavities are dedicated test cavities that allow frequency and temperature resolved performance characterization of treatments without changing environments, therefore providing an excellent test vehicle to test these new treatments with rf frequencies ranging from 200 to 1,200 MHz. In this paper, performance measurements from both QWR and HWR cavities are reported and their performance compared with four different treatments: baseline, a conventional 120°C low temperature bake for 48 h, and two mid-T bakes at 300°C and 400°C for 3 h. In addition, sample analysis using SEM, EDX and SIMS of witness samples is also shown. It is found that the mid-T bakes are not directly transferable to low frequency cavities. In the fundamental modes of the two test cavities, no performance gain over the baseline treatment nor a decreasing temperature dependent component with rising rf amplitude was observed. At frequencies above 1 GHz and low temperatures, the mid-T bakes show a reduced field dependence of RBCS compared to both the baseline and 120°C treatments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".