Design Guide › Physics theory
Cyclotron physics theory design rules
18 of the guide’s 1878 rules carry the physics-theory tag.
Rules that are theoretical results rather than practice: stripping lifetimes, measurement accuracy floors, kinematic broadening, and detector efficiency models.
Each rule keeps its formula where the source gives one, a verbatim quote, a page-level
citation, and a stable identifier (dg-NNNN) that resolves here and on the
all-in-one guide. Where an editorial note says
“the reference machine”, its parameters are on the
guide’s front page.
By applicability level: level 1 (3) · level 2 (9) · level 3 (3) · level 4 (3) — levels rank breadth, never license to skip (method). Related domains, by shared rules: Beam dynamics (10), Magnet (5), Beam measurement (3), Modeling (2), RF (2). To combine tags or levels, open this domain in the filterable view.
Verify before use. Every rule here is a source extract in the vocabulary of the editorial methodology — faithful to its cited page, not an independently validated engineering requirement. Re-read any rule that drives a real design decision at the cited page before committing metal, money, or high voltage to it. The editorial note under each quote is this site’s extrapolation to a tabletop machine, not something the source said: an editor’s judgement, audited for overreach, never a citation.
-
Lorentz (magnetic) stripping of H- has rest-frame lifetime tau = (A1/E)*exp(A2/E) with A1=2.714e-6 s*V/m, A2=4.474e9 V/m, E=gamma*beta*c*B - negligible below a few MeV even at 4 T.
tau = (A1/E)*exp(A2/E), E = gamma*beta*c*BSource quote & editorial note
a 4 T magnetic field for the maximum achievable energy of 8.5 MeV in the AMIT cyclotron corresponds to a beam-rest-frame electric field of E = 160 MV/m. This entails a marginal beam fraction loss per unit length of 1.42e-6 m-1
Calvo et al., Beam Stripping Interactions in Compact Cyclotrons — PRAB 24, 090101 (2021) — p. 7-8, 14
Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: At 0.889 T and 500 keV the rest-frame field is ~9 MV/m, where the exponential makes the lifetime effectively infinite - Lorentz stripping can be ignored entirely for a next machine.
-
Know the accuracy floor of the cited absorber-based measurement: range-energy data and straggling limited the most-probable-energy determination to a few hundred keV, with the high-energy portion nearly as good, and the low-energy portion involving considerably greater uncertainty.
Source quote & editorial note
These factors limit the accuracy of determination of the most probable energy to a few hundred kilovolts. The high energy portion of the energy distribution can be determined with almost equivalent accuracy
Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: The asymmetry - high-energy side of an absorber spectrum better determined than the low-energy tail - is the shape to remember, but the historical few-hundred-keV floor belongs to that apparatus: for a PIPS-plus-degrader setup, build the detector-and-degrader response matrix and quote separate uncertainties for mode, upper edge and tail rather than scaling ORNL's numbers.
-
Opening a spectrograph's in-plane angular acceptance costs kinematic broadening of peaks when scattering off light nuclei; the cited instrument accepted that trade for large-angle reach.
Source quote & editorial note
In scattering from light nuclei, this introduces appreciable kinematic broadening of peaks as the entrance aperture is opened.
Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: For a next machine's Rutherford-scattering station the same knob exists: closing the entrance aperture trades count rate for resolution. State the broadening honestly - dE ~ |dE/dtheta|*dtheta depends on beam energy, angle and kinematics in general; only the FRACTIONAL elastic broadening at fixed masses and angle drops out energy-independent - so compute it for the actual geometry rather than quoting a mass-ratio shortcut.
-
A simple single-scattering model predicts organic-scintillator neutron efficiency usefully: eff = (1 - E0/En)*(1 - exp(-nH*sigma_np*l)). The source calls the first factor exact and response-shape-independent - which holds given its implicit assumptions: isotropic center-of-mass n-p scattering (uniform recoil spectrum), a single hydrogen scatter, and a sharp threshold; find E0 per threshold setting from a calibration reaction.
eff = (1 - E0/En)(1 - exp(-n_H*sigma_np(En)*l)); valid as a first-order model for thin hydrogenous scintillators; degrades with n-p anisotropy at higher energy, carbon interactions, proton escape, multiple scatteringSource quote & editorial note
The first factor in (1) is exact. It does not depend on the exact shape of the response curve (pulse-height vs proton recoil energy) of the scintillator.
Fulbright et al., A Fast Neutron Time of Flight System for Use with Cyclotrons — NYO-9360 (1962) — p. 15
Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: A lovely teaching derivation - a two-factor closed form students can test against a calibration reaction - and the transferable habit is identifying which factor rests on which assumption. Validate against calibration or Monte Carlo for the actual detector and energy range before leaning on it.
-
Choose design beam energy from the reaction excitation curve: the thesis justifies its 150 keV deuteron design energy by placing the d(d,n)3He cross-section 'near the maximum' of its plotted curve, calling the reaction exothermic with - as printed - '2.227 MeV released for each deuteron pair'. [Source-internal error, surfaced: 2.227 MeV is approximately the DEUTERON BINDING energy; the D(d,n)3He Q-value is 3.27 MeV and D(d,p)3H is 4.03 MeV. And the D-D cross-section keeps rising well beyond 150 keV - 'near the maximum' holds only within the thesis's plotted range.]
Source quote & editorial note
The maximum energy of the current cyclotron, using (6), is 150 keV for deuterons, which puts the cross section near the maximum. ... [the d(d,n)3He reaction is] exothermic with 2.227 MeV released for each deuteron pair.
Cressman, The Design and Construction of a Small Cyclotron — Houghton College thesis (2006) — p. 49
Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: Working back from the excitation curve converts machine energy from a bragging number into a requirement - the transferable design move. D-D is the standout low-energy neutron reaction because its cross-section is already usable near 100 keV; take Q-values and cross-sections from live evaluated data (per site policy), not from the thesis's figures.
-
Practical relativistic ceiling as the thesis cites it: beyond raising electrode voltage, relativity can be countered by shaping the magnetic field, and 'the actual relativistic limit for magnetic resonators accelerating protons is closer to 25 MeV' - a historical (Rose-era) estimate for that machine class, not a universal constant.
Source quote & editorial note
The actual relativistic limit for magnetic resonators accelerating protons is closer to 25 MeV.
Cressman, The Design and Construction of a Small Cyclotron — Houghton College thesis (2006) — p. 28
Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: Contextualizes the phase-slip table (dg-1468): field shaping buys real headroom beyond the uniform-field estimate - how much depends on the field design, so don't carry a fixed multiplier. For any machine, calculate cumulative phase slip from the actual energy gain per turn and B(r) rather than trusting an energy-class exemption; slip can bite below 1 MeV when the gain per turn is small.
-
The source's stated approximation for cyclotron-mass-spectrometer resolution is R ≈ 3 n H, with n the number of in-phase turns before extraction and H the RF harmonic number — so resolution is bought with more turns or a higher harmonic, each carrying its cost elsewhere in the design (the source's center-region compromise, dg-1556).
R ~ 3 * n * H (n = turns before extraction, H = RF harmonic)Source quote & editorial note
a mass resolution of about 1800 is needed to separate 14 C from 13 CH. The resolution of a CMS is approximately: R ≈ 3 x n x H, where n is the number of turns that in-phase particles make in a synchronous field before extraction and H is the rf harmonic number
Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: an estimating relation, not a law — the coefficient depends on the phase-slip criterion that defines an in-phase turn. Useful for order-of-magnitude estimates of how sharply a small machine discriminates species or off-resonance drive; derive the real number from a phase-history calculation for the actual field and RF program.
-
Rose-type phase integral (as applied to the ISU cyclotron, 1961): with u = sin(theta) the phase lag, tune-down profile deltaB(r) = B1 - B(r), field index n = -(r/B)(dB/dr), and V0 the peak dee-to-ground voltage, du/dr = pi*e*r*B*deltaB*(1-n)/(2*m*V0). Integrating from the measured B(r) gives the phase-lag curve for any initial phase on the accelerating branch (-pi/2 < theta < pi/2); the modeled solution remains admissible while -1 < u < 1, u = +/-1 being the model's phase-loss boundary.
u = (pi*e/(2*m*V0)) * integral_0_to_r [ r*B*(B1-B)*(1-n) ] dr + u0, with u = sin(theta)Source quote & editorial note
du/dr = πerB∆B(1−n)/(2mV0). This equation gives the rate of change of the sine of the phase lag, θ, as a function of r and the magnetic field, B. Integration gives u = (πe/2mV0) ∫ rB∆B(1−n) dr + u0. (1) From this result the phase of the proton can be obtained at any radius if the initial phase lag and the magnetic field are known
Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: this single quadrature over the measured field map predicts phase history without tracking orbits, and it runs in a spreadsheet — under the model's assumptions (nonrelativistic centered orbits, continuous acceleration, initial phase restricted to the accelerating branch). The right first tool for choosing frequency and trim before any trajectory code is written; it bounds phase admissibility only — vertical loss, radial loss and scattering are separate budgets.
-
Median-plane field expansion used for axial motion (ISU, 1963): from curl B = 0 and div B = 0 in the dee box, with pole symmetry giving Br = 0 on the median plane, the small-z approximation is Br = -z*dB/dr with B taken independent of z - reducing the axial equation of motion to z'' - (e*v/m)*(dB/dr)*z = 0 driven entirely by the median-plane gradient.
Br = -z*dB/dr (small z); axial equation m*z'' = -r*phidot*e*BrSource quote & editorial note
Since Br is equal to zero on the median plane, the following approximation is valid for small axial displacements
Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: This is why a median-plane-only field survey suffices for a first-cut axial-focusing model - the off-plane field follows from Maxwell to first order in z. The 1963 authors also flagged its limit - the approximation degrades for large axial amplitudes and unknown off-plane field shape.
-
The Rutgers group point out that an E x B channel embedded in a cyclotron cannot resolve the q/m ambiguity between fully ionized deuterium (2H+) and helium (4He++), because the cyclotron itself acts as a velocity filter at each radius: at fixed magnetic field both species have the same resonant frequency and the same angular velocity, hence the same velocity at the channel entrance, though not the same energy.
f_cyc = (B/2*pi)*(q/m)Source quote & editorial note
It might be expected that the combined effect of the cyclotron's resonant acceleration and our embedded Wien Filter's velocity selection might separate the mass ambiguity. However, this is not the case, as the cyclotron itself acts a velocity filter at each of its radii. […] It also holds that at any given radius, both the deuterium and helium cover the same angular distance and thus must have the same angular velocity to keep in step with the oscillating RF voltage. Now it is easily seen that the velocity of either deuterium or helium will be the same at the entrance to the deflection channel. Note, while the two ions have the same velocity, they obviously do not have the same energy.
Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: Directly relevant to a hydrogen-fed tabletop machine, where the contaminant species of interest are H2+ and H3+ rather than deuterium and helium: an internal E x B channel will separate q/m = 1 from q/m = 1/2, but will not distinguish two species sharing a q/m. Species identification has to come from elsewhere (gas fill, source chemistry, or a downstream detector), a limit worth knowing before building the channel as a diagnostic.
-
Off-harmonic operation observed and rationalized on the Rutgers 12-inch: because a cyclotron only resonantly accelerates at odd integer harmonics, operating near but not on an odd harmonic can still give a successfully accelerated beam provided the integrated phase slippage over all revolutions is less than 180 degrees before the target or extraction point — and since higher DEE voltage means fewer revolutions to reach a given energy, the tolerable phase slippage per turn increases with DEE voltage.
Source quote & editorial note
This result is not understood, as only integer odd harmonic numbers support magnetic resonance acceleration. At an even harmonic, when acceleration occurs at a gap crossing, deceleration must occur at the subsequent crossing, yielding zero net accelerator per revolution. In the region between an even and odd harmonic, there is a balance of acceleration and phase slippage which the ions encounter. Operating a cyclotron near, but not on, an odd harmonic, can still lead to a successful resonantly accelerated beam, provided that the integrated phase slippage over all revolutions is less than 180 before hitting the target or extraction point. The greater the DEE voltage, the fewer the number of ion revolutions are needed to achieve the desired energy, thus the tolerance of phase slippage per turn increases with DEE voltage.
Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: Directly relevant to low-dee-voltage machines, in mirror image: many hundreds of turns means very little tolerable slip per turn, which is an operational argument for dee voltage beyond simple turn-count. State the physics as the source's gap phasing gives it: odd harmonics are the resonant condition for this conventional geometry, and near-harmonic operation can survive if the bunch stays inside the accelerating phase window — the 180-degree integrated-slip figure is an approximate span, conditional on where in phase the ions start and which way they slip. The reported 2.22 and 4.25 harmonic numbers are stated by the authors as "not understood" — an open anomaly, not a result. ("accelerator per revolution" is the source's typo for "acceleration".)
-
Complete transverse stability in a constant-gradient (weak-focusing) cyclotron requires 0 < n < 1, where the field index n = -(r/B)(dB/dr); the axial tune is nu_z = sqrt(n) and the radial tune is nu_x = sqrt(1-n), both from the Kerst-Serber equation.
n = -(r/B)(dB/dr); d2z/dt2 + n w^2 z = 0; d2x/dt2 + w^2 (1-n) x = 0; nu_z = sqrt(n); nu_x = sqrt(1-n)Source quote & editorial note
Complete transverse stability. It has thus been shown for axial stability, n must be greater than 0, and for radial stability n must be less than 1. Total transverse stability exists in the region of: 0 < n <1
Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: The design inequality for a weak-focusing machine, derived in this report from scratch: away from the central region, 0 < n < 1 buys simultaneous linear axial and radial stability (at r = 0 itself n = 0, as the source's own next passage states — the center is handled by other means, dg-1729/dg-1835). It is a LOCAL linear-stability window: resonances (dg-1682), acceleration and field errors still get their say. Sign convention: this document's leading minus makes n > 0 a falling field; the companion AVF paper uses k = d ln⟨B⟩/d ln R with opposite sign, so reconcile n = −k before mixing formulas.
-
For the Rutgers 12-inch AVF work the axial tune is written nu_z^2 = -k + F(1+tan^2 xi) and the radial tune nu_r^2 = 1+k, where k = d ln<B> / d ln R is the average field index, F is the rms flutter (the rms azimuthal variation of the vertical field) and xi is the instantaneous angle the sector edge makes with the orbit.
nu_z^2 = -k + F(1+tan^2 xi); nu_r^2 = 1+k; k = d ln<B> / d ln RSource quote & editorial note
AVF focusing can be used to supplement weak focusing. In this context, the weak focusing comes from the average radial gradient’s field index, denoted as k, where: k = d ln〈B〉/ d ln R . The tune is proportional to the relative focusing strength. Following the treatment of J.J. Livingood,[6] one can write the axial tune in terms of the average field index, flutter, and the instantaneous edge angle: νz² = -k + F(1+tan²ξ) The radial tune is written as νr² = 1+k … The rms variation of the vertical field is called flutter and is denoted as F. The azimuthal magnetic field component, Bθ, is also proportional to the flutter.
Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: The design equation for combining a weak-focusing taper with AVF sectors, showing the two contributions add. Two convention traps, both resolved here: (1) this paper calls F 'the rms variation' — for the linear-in-F tune formula to be the standard Livingood form, F must be the MEAN-SQUARE fractional variation ⟨((B−⟨B⟩)/⟨B⟩)²⟩, i.e. the square of the rms fraction, exactly as the same program's later paper defines it (F² there = ⟨…²⟩, tune quadratic in its F; dg-1746) — reconcile against Livingood before numeric use; (2) k = d ln⟨B⟩/d ln R is NEGATIVE for a falling field, opposite in sign to the magnet study's n, so n = −k. The tan²ξ factor is why edge angle is a powerful and dangerous knob — it grows without bound (dg-1697).
-
The Rutgers 12-inch neutron work used the d-d reaction, described by the author as having a broadly peaked cross section at a mere 180 keV, with the d(d,n)He3 reaction producing 2.45 MeV neutrons quasi-isotropically for an incident beam in the 180 keV regime. This is a DEUTERON beam on a deuterated target — not a proton reaction.
Source quote & editorial note
Many nuclear reactions produce neutrons, but perhaps the simplest is d-d reaction, with a broadly peaked cross section at a mere 180 keV. With an incident energy beam, in the regime of 180 keV, the reaction d(d,n)He3 reaction produces 2.45 MeV neutrons quasi-isotropically.
Koeth, Neutron Production with a 12-Inch Cyclotron (2017) — p. 1
Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: The species distinction is the load-bearing radiological fact: deuterons on a deuterated target make fast neutrons at only ~180 keV, while common stable targets have (p,n) thresholds above 1 MeV (7Li(p,n) at ~1.88 MeV is among the lowest) — so a sub-MeV proton machine's neutron picture hinges on verifying the beam really is protons (deuterium contamination opens the D–D channel), what the beam actually strikes, and the truthful maximum energy; no blanket neutron-free claim follows. The cross-section characterization and the quasi-isotropic 2.45 MeV figure are the source's own: at finite beam energy the neutron energy is angle-dependent, and quantitative cross-section shapes should be taken from evaluated data at design time, not from this description. The source states its laboratory move was what provided the radiological controls to permit fast-neutron generation (abstract, p.1).
-
For spiral-edged AVF sectors the vertical tune obeys nu_z^2 = -k + F(1 + tan^2 xi), where F is the flutter (mean field variation at fixed radius), k the average negative field index, and xi the edge angle; the form is convenient for Archimedean spirals r = a*theta^(1/n), for which the Rutgers paper states tan xi = d(theta)/dr.
nu_z^2 = -k + F(1 + tan^2 xi); Archimedean spiral r = a*theta^(1/n); edge angle (from radial): tan xi = r*d(theta)/dr = n*theta [source prints tan xi = d(theta)/dr, which is not dimensionless — corrected 2026-09-05, site wave-18 audit; verify conventions against Livingood, the paper's ref 10, before numerical use]Source quote & editorial note
This form is convenient for sectors defined by an Archimedean spiral, r = aθ^(1/n), for which tan ξ = dθ/dr.
Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: PDF p.3 = printed p.293 (the exponent 1/n is printed as a superscript; the quote transcribes it inline). The design equation for trading spiral tightness against vertical tune before cutting steel — with one correction applied: as printed, tan ξ = dθ/dr is not dimensionless; the standard edge-angle relation is tan ξ = r·dθ/dr, which for the stated Archimedean spiral evaluates to nθ. The flutter and approximation conventions are the paper's; verify against Livingood (its own ref [10]) before using the tune expression numerically.
-
A weak-focusing cyclotron only meets the cyclotron condition at one point in the ion's flight from source to target; the accumulated error is tolerable as long as the overall integrated phase slippage stays under 90 degrees, and raising the accelerating dee voltage reduces the number of turns and hence the accumulated slippage. Alternatively, starting the ions in a field that is too high lets the slippage run one way, meet the condition midway, then reverse to net zero.
Source quote & editorial note
This error is acceptable, as long as the overall integrated phase slippage is less than 90°.
Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: PDF p.1 = printed p.299. The governing constraint for any non-isochronous tabletop machine, under the source's convention: keep the integrated phase slippage inside the source's 90-degree budget, remembering the whole phase TRAJECTORY matters — a net-zero final slip does not save a beam that left the accelerating window mid-flight. Low dee voltage hurts twice (more turns against the same budget), and the deliberate start-above-nominal-field trick is best read as centering the phase excursion, not as a free correction.
-
In the Rutgers 12-inch cyclotron's weak-focusing field the axial tune is nu_z = sqrt(n) and the radial tune nu_x = sqrt(1-n), with total transverse stability for 0 < n < 1; coupling resonances further exclude n = 0.2, 0.36 and 0.5 (and higher values).
n = -(r/B)(dB/dr); nu_z = sqrt(n); nu_x = sqrt(1-n)Source quote & editorial note
Values of n=0.2, 0.36, 0.5 (and others yet higher) need to be avoided.
Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: PDF p.2 = printed p.370. The explicit forbidden-n list a weak-focusing pole-tip designer rarely sees written down: inside 0 < n < 1, the taper must also avoid 0.2 (Qx = 2Qz), 0.36 and 0.5. A well-chosen profile keeps n below 0.2 for nearly the whole acceleration (the source's own following prescription); the design questions are where n(r) crosses what, and how fast — compute or map n(r) rather than assuming which resonances are in play.
-
The axial betatron period Tz relates to the ion revolution period T0 by Tz = T0/sqrt(n), so it takes 1/sqrt(n) revolutions to complete one vertical betatron oscillation and the betatron phase advances by sqrt(n) of a period per revolution.
T_z = T_0 / sqrt(n)Source quote & editorial note
Thus for a given n it takes 1/√n ion revolutions to complete one vertical betatron oscillation
Editorial note, tabletop extrapolation: PDF p.2 = printed p.370. What converts a photograph into a number: count N revolutions between same-phase vertical maxima and νz ≈ 1/N — and, under the smooth azimuthally-symmetric weak-focusing approximation, n ≈ 1/N². It is an average over the interval, not a point measurement. On this machine's gently tapered poles νz ≈ 0.09 mid-radius (Fig. 3a), i.e. about 11 turns per oscillation, comfortably resolvable on its radial-draw images; treat that as Rutgers calibration context, not a class-typical value.