1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Experimental and computational study of the injection of antiprotons into a positron plasma for antihydrogen production
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1063/1.4801067
/content/aip/journal/pop/20/4/10.1063/1.4801067
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/pop/20/4/10.1063/1.4801067

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Potentials and geometry for measuring the AR excitation of an antiproton bunch. (a) The physical setup, with the electrode marked pink connected to the AR signal. (b) The external potential created by the electrodes at . (c) A close-up of b, emphasizing the effect of various antiproton space charges. (d) The perturbation created at when 1 V is applied to the AR electrode. The potentials used in the PPM Vlasov model are deduced by solving the 2D Poisson equation with physically accurate boundary conditions. Those in the spectral Vlasov solver are analytic fits up to . The external potential in the analytic model fits up to , and the perturbation to .

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Time evolution of (a) the energy and (b) phase angle of the antiproton distribution, as predicted by different numerical and analytic models. The phase difference is defined as , where is the phase angle of the center of charge of the distribution, and the phase angle of the AR perturbation.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Critical perturbation amplitude for varying chirp rates. The prediction of the analytic model and the results from the single particle and PPM Vlasov model are compared.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

The final energy of an antiproton bunch after various AR perturbations, as measured in the experiment and predicted by the single particle and the PPM Vlasov models. (a) The final antiproton energy after AR perturbations of various amplitudes and a fixed stopping frequency of 360 kHz. (b) The final antiproton energy after AR perturbations of various stopping frequencies and a fixed amplitude of 0.15 V. (c) The energy distribution of an antiproton bunch after a typical AR perturbation in a—the delta function for the single particle result indicates the inability of the model to simulate a distribution. The experimental data have been corrected for systematics—see main text.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Potentials and geometry for injecting antiprotons into a positron plasma. (a) The physical setup of the experiment, with the pink electrode connected to the AR signal generator. (b) The external potential created by the electrodes at , and the effect of the positron space charge. (c) A close-up of b, showing the effect of the antiproton space charge.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

(a) The simulated distribution in speed of injected antiprotons as they travel across the positron plasma, conditioned on the radius. The blue dotted curve shows a reference thermal distribution of antiprotons at 800 K, which has the same area under the curve as the curve. The total number of injected antiproton is 7400 (out of the 16000 initial antiprotons). (b) Simulated antiproton distributions at various during an AR perturbation. The AR chirp starts at . The contours are lines of constant total energy, and increase by 0.25 eV (2900 K) per contour. At each time, the phase space at is displayed, together with the charge density.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

(a) The simulated fraction of antiprotons injected into the positron plasma conditioned on their injected KE, using AR perturbations of various stopping frequencies. (b) Same as a, except the curves are conditioned on the radius. (c) The number of antiprotons from experiment that successfully inject into the positron plasma and form antihydrogen atoms, divided by the estimated initial number of antiprotons, at various stopping frequencies. The error bars indicate the statistical error of the experimental measurement, and do not include the detector calibration uncertainty ( ) which is systematic to all the data points.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Contours showing the fraction of antiprotons injected by an AR perturbation into the positron plasma with KE below the indicated value on each subfigure, as a function of the initial antiproton number and temperature. Each antiproton bunch with a specific initial number and temperature is injected using the optimal AR perturbation that leads to the highest injection ratio at KE —i.e., these contours reflect the best-case capability of a conventional AR perturbation.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

The simulated, conditional fraction of antiprotons injected into the positron plasma using incremental injection with different stopping frequencies, and two initial antiproton numbers. The rightmost frequency (325 kHz) corresponds to an AR chirp of zero length, with the chirp length increasing towards the left of the horizontal axis. (a) The fraction of antiprotons injected, out of an initial 16 000, conditioned on their KE in the positron plasma. (b) Same as a, except that the ratios are conditioned on radius. (c) The fraction of antiprotons injected, out of an initial 160 000, conditioned on their KE in the positron plasma. (d) Same as c, except that the ratios are conditioned on radius.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

The external potential seen by the antiprotons during a linear ramp of the AR electrode shown in Fig. 5 . The numbers displayed in each subfigure are the electrode's voltage and the number of remaining positrons, the rest being lost to evaporative escape.

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

Contours showing the fraction of antiprotons injected into the positron plasma after a pure linear ramp, against the initial antiproton number and temperature. The four figures show the fraction of antiprotons injected at a KE below the indicated value. Each antiproton bunch with a specific initial number and temperature is injected using the optimal linear ramp depth that leads to the highest injection ratio at KE smaller than .

Tables

Generic image for table
Table I.

Typical plasma conditions and parameters just before injection manipulations. The uncertainties in particle numbers refer to the shot-to-shot fluctuation of the species. The plasma dimensions are defined by the region enclosed by the equi-density contour in space that encloses 90% of the total material, and the density is defined by the average therein. The Debye lengths and plasma oscillation periods are derived from this average density. The mean free time is the mean time between effective collisions estimated from the non-magnetized Coulomb collision model.

Generic image for table
Table II.

Injection performance of some representative plasma parameters, taken from Figs. 8 and 11 . The “, ” row gives the number of antiprotons injected into the positron plasma at below 10 K. The “” row gives the temperature fit of the KE distribution of injected antiprotons.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/pop/20/4/10.1063/1.4801067
2013-04-10
2014-04-17
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Experimental and computational study of the injection of antiprotons into a positron plasma for antihydrogen production
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/pop/20/4/10.1063/1.4801067
10.1063/1.4801067
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM