Talk:Synchrocyclotron

Replacement of the cyclotron

Synchrocycltrons have been built, unfortunately, the only reference for this I have is a course material written in French by a CERN collaborator.

See also McMillan, Edwin Mattison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.194.8.73 (talk • contribs) on 22:00, 26 September 2005

It seems that Synchrotron are what replaced the Synchrocyclotron. See [1]. Dlenmn 02:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CERN Synchro-Cyclotron

CERN had a synchrocyclotron in the late 1950s. http://library.cern.ch/archives/internorg/ioSC.html --194.36.2.228 (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between synchrotrons and synchrocyclotrons

They sound very much alike. The article could use a section explaining the difference. JudgeDeadd (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

There is a proposal to merge this article to Synchrotron. I think synchrocyclotron is closer in design to cyclotron, so merging into cyclotron might make more sense. However, I feel that synchrocyclotron has its unique history (the history section added with more references), I think it should stay as a standalone article. Z22 (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they should remain separate articles. @Headbomb: I can't find your argument for the merge? — dukwon (talk) (contribs)

@Z22 and Dukwon: My argument for the merge is mostly that I can't find what the difference between these things is in the first place, and after multiple reads of both articles, synchrocyclotron and synchrotron look synonymous to me. If they are not, and are in fact distinct types of cyclotrons, this is not made clear in any of the articles, or I'm overlooking the relevant part. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can read from here. The synchrocyclotron is a modified version of cyclotron which uses a variable frequency RF generator instead. Also, one "D" is removed, and a deflecting electrode is added. However, the particles still travel in a spiral outward like in the cyclotron. On the other hand, the synchrotron lets particles to travel in a ring at a constant radius, but it uses the time synchronization to control the magnetic field along the ring. Maybe we can enhance the synchrocyclotron article more. The current description is a little bit hard to understand by people not in this field. Also, the Accelerators for Society has these 3 types in separate "main categories" of accelerators. That is credible enough for us to say these 3 things deserve independent articles. Z22 (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I feel that if the article is to be merged, the appropriate target would be Cyclotron. The synchrocyclotron was a transitional form, an effort to modify the cyclotron to be able to accelerate particles to higher relativistic velocities by altering the frequency as the particles gained energy, but the defining factor is that the particle's path was still spiral as in a cyclotron, not a closed loop as in the synchrotron. Thus in the synchrocyclotron the diameter of the particle beam's path was still limited because it required a uniform magnetic field, so the path had to remain between the pole pieces of a single huge magnet. The energy was limited by the diameter of the pole pieces that could be practically made. In the synchrotron, by contrast, the particle beam traveled in the same closed loop path as it accelerated, so the magnetic field didn't need to fill the interior of the loop; instead of a single huge magnet, smaller bending magnets could be used. Therefore there was no limit to the diameter of the accelerating loop, and thus no limit to the output energy. --Chetvorno^TALK 08:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]