4.6 Article

Design and Cold-Test of 0.34-THz Modified Slotted Sine Waveguide Traveling Wave Tube

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TED.2023.3307663

关键词

Sine waveguide (SWG); slow wave structure (SWS); terahertz; traveling wave tube (TWT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a modified slotted sine waveguide slow wave structure (MS-SWG SWS) as a potential construction in the terahertz region, which has the advantages of being simple to fabricate and low transmission loss. Cold-test results demonstrate the feasibility of the processing scheme, with the S11 <- 15 dB ranging from 330 to 390 GHz. Particle-in-cell (PIC) simulation reveals that the MS-SWG SWS can generate an output power of 17.4 W at 340 GHz with a gain of 33.9 dB and a 3-dB bandwidth of 11 GHz from 334 to 345 GHz. The simulation findings also show a flow rate of 100% for the matched electron-optical system (EOS) consisting of an electron gun, a periodic permanent magnet (PPM), and a single-stage depressed collector.
The sine waveguide slow wave structure (SWG SWS), which has the advantages of being simple to fabricate, high transmission, low reflection, and insertion loss, has been considered as a potential construction in the terahertz region. Nevertheless, the existing ideal SWG SWS could not be fabricated by nano-computer numerical control (nano-CNC) machining. A modified slotted SWG (MS-SWG) SWS that evolved from the ideal slotted SWG (IS-SWG) SWS is suggested in this study. The cold-test results prove the feasibility of the processing scheme and the S11 <- 15 dB ranges from 330 to 390 GHz. The particle-in-cell (PIC) results reveal that the presented SWS can produce output power of 17.4 W at 340 GHz with gain of 33.9 dB. The 3-dB bandwidth is 11 GHz from 334 to 345 GHz. The simulation findings reveal a flow rate of 100% for the matched electron-optical system (EOS), which includes an electron gun, a periodic permanent magnet (PPM), and a single-stage depressed collector.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据