3 ms·

Very interesting - I wonder why they did not choose to run the beam through water to dissipate energy?

• SamReidHughes 11y ago
  Do you mean steam?
• jepler 11y ago
  Graphite stays solid at standard pressure up to 3900K (source: wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon) so you get ~3600K of ΔT from standard temperature of ~300K before you have to deal with a liquid or gas. Coupled with being denser than water (but having lower specific heat than liquid or solid water), my napkin is telling me you get about 10x the heat capacity in J/m³ with graphite instead of water.
• idlewords 11y ago
  There's a technical discussion of using graphite vs. aluminum vs. copper in this paper: http://flash.desy.de/sites2009/site_vuvfel/content/e403/e1642/e1132/e1129/infoboxContent1791/fel2006-05.pdf http://flash.desy.de/sites2009/site_vuvfel/content/e403/e164... And a comparison of graphite vs. water schemes here: http://tesla.desy.de/new_pages/TESLA_Reports/2001/pdf_files/tesla2001-04.pdf http://tesla.desy.de/new_pages/TESLA_Reports/2001/pdf_files/...
  • SeanDav 11y ago
    Thanks for the links. I note that the graphite vs water scheme paper actually concludes that water cooling would be the preferred method.
• deelowe 11y ago
  You'd need a pretty serious pressure vessel. I think time is a factor here.