MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403118352 · doi:10.1016/j.nima.2024.169935

Evaluation of DSRD-based pulsers for a Dielectric Wall Accelerator

2024· article· en· W4403118352 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A Accelerators Spectrometers Detectors and Associated Equipment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPulsed Power Technology Applications
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDielectricPhysicsElectrical engineeringAtomic physicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Silicon (Si) drift step recovery diodes (DSRD) are opening switches that form the basis for nanosecond-scale high voltage (HV) pulsers. These pulsers are crucial to the operation of a dielectric wall accelerator (DWA), a compact particle accelerator design for proton beam radiation therapy. For the DWA to operate properly, the pulser must generate HV pulses with fast rise times and widths on the order of 1 ns at an operating frequency above 1 kHz. Several pulser designs are available that can optimally drive DSRDs. The purpose of this study is to investigate the capabilities of two DSRD-based pulsers in the context of the DWA and the required pulse parameters. The first pulser is based on a magnetic saturation transformer (MST) and a DRSD. The second pulser considered is a multi-module MOSFET-DSRD-based pulser. Additionally, Sentaurus TCAD simulations are used to study the influence of the Si DSRD doping profile on the output pulse shape. The MST-DSRD-based pulser is able to generate higher amplitude pulses than the MOSFET-DSRD-based pulser with a single module (9645 V and 1807 V, respectively). However, the multi-module MOSFET-DSRD-based pulser achieves the maximum pulse amplitude (10.9 kV) compared to MST-DSRD-based pulser (9645 V). The MOSFET-DSRD-based pulser also generates pulses with shorter pulse widths compared to the MST-DSRD-based pulser (minimum of 3 ns vs. minimum of 8.36 ns, respectively). With no compression stage, the MOSFET-DSRD-based pulser (with more than one module) generates pulses with consistently faster rise times ( ≤ 3.06 ns) compared to the MST-DSRD-based pulser ( ≤ 4.31 ns). With a compression stage, the rise times were comparable between the two pulsers (MOSFET-DSRD: 1.66 ns and MST-DSRD: 1.48 ns). Both pulsers are able to operate at 1 kHz and the MOSFET-DSRD-based pulser up to 10 kHz. Parasitic capacitance and coupling between modules of the MOSFET-DSRD-based pulser affect the pulse through their influence on the forward and reverse pumping duration. Simulations show that the p region of the DSRD should be larger than the n doped region. Simulations including a parasitic capacitance, modelling the electrical connections to the DSRD, reduce the pulse amplitude. Simulations of the pulsers incorporating SiC DSRDs show a reduction in the pulse amplitude and a widening of the pulse width in comparison to the Si DSRDs. • DSRD-based pulsers are suitable for use with the dielectric wall accelerator. • A multi-module MOSFET-DSRD-based pulser generates short width, high voltage pulses. • The junction depth of the DSRD doping should be optimized for higher quality pulses. • SiC DSRDs may limit the pulse amplitude and increase the pulse width relative to Si.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it