Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

RF Superconductivity and the Superheating Field H sh James P. Sethna, Gianluigi Catelani, and Mark Transtrum Superconducting RF cavity Lower losses Limited.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "RF Superconductivity and the Superheating Field H sh James P. Sethna, Gianluigi Catelani, and Mark Transtrum Superconducting RF cavity Lower losses Limited."— Presentation transcript:

1 RF Superconductivity and the Superheating Field H sh James P. Sethna, Gianluigi Catelani, and Mark Transtrum Superconducting RF cavity Lower losses Limited by maximum of H(t) in cycle Each superconducting material has maximum possible H sh Radio Frequency cavity Oscillating E(t) to accelerate particle bunches Maxwell implies oscillating H(t) Best shaped cavities: E/H = 36 MV/(m G)

2 Metastability and Nucleation Raindrops: the Liquid-Gas Transition “Superheating” like 110% humidity Gas phase metastable for T c > T > T sp, spinodal temperature Metastable energy barrier B droplet nucleation R 2 surface tension cost R 3 bulk energy gain Unstable spontaneous separation at T sp linear stability theory sinusoidal threshold  ~  exp(i k·z) lowers energy k TcTc T sp

3 Superconductors and magnetic fields What’s the superheating field? Type II (Nb and Nb 3 Sn) RF cavity operating conditions already above H c1 Vortex nucleation slower than RF frequency (GHz)   Type I (Pb) Type II superconductors  Magnetic flux lattice H > H c1 Coherence length: Decay of  Penetration depth: Decay of  Energy cost Energy gain Can we calculate the phase diagram for H sh ?

4 Why a superheating field? Metastability threshold and H sh Why is there a barrier to vortex penetration? How to calculate H sh ?    Costly core  enters first; gain from field  later Theories of superheating field Line nucleation H sh ~H c /  discouraging, but wrong Ginsburg-Landau theory H sh ~ 0.745 H c Eilenberger equations H sh = 0.84 H c Eliashberg equations (hard!) Field where barrier vanishes Linear stability analysis determines nucleation mechanism: vortex array Barrier

5 Theories of superconductivity Validity versus complexity Ginzburg-Landau (GL)  (r), H(r) order parameters Spatial dependence OK Valid only near T c RF cavity operating conditions Ginzburg-Landau valid Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer (BCS) theory Pairing k, -k within vibration energy Excellent for traditional superconductors H c1 (T), H c2 (T) done H sh (T) hard (spatial dependence) n kFkF ħdħd

6 Theories of superconductivity Validity versus complexity Eilenberger Equations Valid at all temperatures Assumes  (r), H(r) vary slowly Green’s function f, g Vortex core collapse?? Eliashberg equations Needs electronic structure Never done before for H sh Ginzburg- Landau Underestimate for H sh MgB 2 Nb 3 Sn Nb at 2K Eilenberger equation results

7 Theories of superconductivity Validity versus complexity Bogoliubov-deGennes equations Pairs all k, -k Local equations for quasiparticle eigenstates We solved for vortex core states, predicted split peak Sum over all quasiparticle states to get self-consistent  (r), H(r) n kFkF Shore et al.Hess et al. Quasiparticle density of states at different distances from vortex center Experiment verified our theoretical prediction of split peak away from vortex center


Download ppt "RF Superconductivity and the Superheating Field H sh James P. Sethna, Gianluigi Catelani, and Mark Transtrum Superconducting RF cavity Lower losses Limited."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google