You are on page 1of 3


.__ Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 375 (1996) 314-316

m ,I--.

Effects of undulator interruptions on the performance of high-gain
FEL amplifiers *
K.-J. Kim”‘“, M. Xie”, C. Pellegrinib
“Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley. CA 94720, USA
hUniversity of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90024. USA

The construction as well as the operation of a long undulator required for short wavelength generation with high-gain
free-electron lasers will become easier if the undulator could be interrupted with drift sections every few gain lengths. To
evaluate the effect of such interruption on the FEL performance, we study the following three effects; (i) the diffraction loss,
(ii) the free space slippage and (iii) the phase de-coherence. The effect (i) is found to be small, the effect (ii) gives a
condition on the length of the drift section and the effect (iii) is small, but not negligible.

1. Introduction number of interruptions and if the quadrupole misalign-
ment exceeds a certain tolerance.
The high-gain amplifiers for short wavelength free-
electron lasers (FELs) [I] require a long undulator. The
construction of such an undulator as well as the FEL 2. The diffraction loss
operation would become easier if the undulator could be
interrupted with drift sections every few gain lengths. We Referring to Fig. 1, we consider an undulator terminated
have investigated the influence of such interruption on the at 1, followed by a free space of length d, and another
FEL performance. These effects are considered: (i) the undulator starting at 2. Consider the dominant guided
diffraction loss, (ii) the free space slippage and, (iii) the mode at 1. The transverse profile of the mode may be
phase de-coherence due to velocity spread and to disper- approximated by the fundamental Gaussian mode
sion errors. The effect (i) is the loss during the process in

( >
which the optical mode in a section of the undulator leaves I
- exp -ikr (1)
the undulator, propagates through the free space and then 91 %I
re-enters and re-adjusts itself in the next section. The effect
(ii) is the fact that the phase of the optical beam is delayed Here
with respect to the electrons’ density modulation for 1 1 i
optical FEL interaction due to the slippage of the electron
91 R, P,
beam in the interruption region. The effect (iii) is the fact
that the electrons’ velocity spread, emittance, and disper- is the complex beam parameter with R, = the radius of the
sion due to misalignment of the quadrupoles used for curvature of the wavefront and p, the beam envelope
additional focusing lead to a reduction of the bunching parameter such that (T, =dm is the rms beam size at
factor. We present an approximate analysis of these effects. location 1 ((TV= W, /2 in the normal laser jargon). The
When applied to the LCLS parameter [2], we find that the minimum value of j3 is usually known as the Rayleigh
effect (i) is negligible, the effect (ii) gives a condition on length Z,.
the length of the drift section, and the effects (iii) are In the drift section between 1 and 2, the free space
small, but could be non-negligible if there is a sufficient

* This work was supported by the Director, Office of High
Energy and Nuclear Physics, U.S. Department of Energy, under I 2
Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098 and DE-FG-3 = 92ER406923.
* Corresponding author. Tel. + 1 5 10 486 7224, fax + I 5 10 486 1 I I I I I Irl-i-llllll
d r
6485, e-mail Fig. 1. Interrupted wiggler.

01689002/96/$15.00 Copyright 0 1996 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
SSDI 0168-9002(95)01209-5
K.-J. Kim et al. f Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phvs. Res. A 375 (1996) 314-316 315

diffraction is described by the transformation q, + q2 = These parameters can be calculated by a variational
q, + d. Thus the transverse profile at 2 becomes method [3]. For the LCLS case A = 1.5 A, E = 15 GeV,
EN =1mmmrad,rr,=3MeV,f=5kA,h,=2cm,a,=
1 3.4, and p = 5 m, we find Z, = 4.3 m and Z,, = 4.2 m.
- exp (2)
q2 Hence

At this point, the optical beam needs to be matched back
into the guided mode with the beam parameter q,.
/cl*= Id z = 0.999
A rigorous calculation of FEL mode involves a self-
consistent treatment of both optical mode and modulation
I+ ( >

of electron beam, and is rather involved [3]. Here we will for d = 25 cm. Indeed, the diffraction loss is very small.
estimate the magnitude of the diffraction effect in a
simpler way by assuming the interruption due to the drift
section is small. Thus we expand the beam profile at 2 as 3. The free space slippage
In the free space, the optical phase seen by an electron is

$ = k: - wt + tan-‘(z/Z,) (7)
Here the terms in are the higher order Gaussian modes The last term. in which z is measured from the waist
with beam parameter q,, which are orthogonal to the location, is due to the fact that the optical field is close to a
fundamental mode. The coefficient C is determined from Gaussian mode rather than a plane wave. The phase
the orthogonality of the Gauss-Laguerre modes. i.e.. by difference, or phase slippage over a distance d is
multiplying exp(ikr*/2qT)/qy and integrating over rdr;
A#==&++&. (8)
&f-41 _ e-q, (4)
47 - 42 YT-4, -d’ where A4P = (I - 1 lP)kd is the slippage with respect to
the carrier plane wave, and Aq%,,= tan-‘((Z,, + d)/Z,) -
Thus, the quantity ICI’ measuring the diffraction loss is tan- ‘(Z,,/Z,) is due to diffraction, p = speed of electron/
given by c. The first term is the dominant one, and it needs to be
close to an integer times 27~. Thus
IclZ= l (5)
1 + (d/2 Im q,)2 . LL2n77.
The wavefront of the guided mode at the undulator end
I may be represented by an equivalent free space mode Using the FEL resonance equation, we obtain the condition
with waist at a distance Z,, inside of the undulator, shown
d=nh,(l +a;,. (10)
as the dotted curves in Fig. 2. Thus, the wavefront of the
guided mode may be parametrized by Z,, and the Rayleigh With the LCLS parameters given before, we find d =
length Z, of the equivalent free space mode as follows: 25 cm for n = I. A distance of 25 cm is a reasonable length
for the drift section.
~,=Z,[l+($j’], R,=Z<,[l+(2)2]. (6) The second term of Eq. (8) becomes

A4,, = tan-’ eo.12,
1 + z,,(Z,, + d)lZZ,

which is indeed much smaller than the first one.
It is interesting to note that the length of the drift section
d is independent of the wavelength if the second term, the
phase slippage due to diffraction. is negligible.

4. The loss of the phase coherence

The electron’s velocity spread leads to phase de-coher-
Wavefront of the guided mode ence. Let us consider the bunching factor (e’@) at the exit
Fig. 2. Wavefronts of the guided mode and the equivalent free of the first undulator 1. After passing through the drift
space mode. section, the bunching factor will change as follows:

316 K.-J. Kim et al. I Nucl. Imtr. and Metlt. in Phxs. Rrs. A -17-F(1996) .?I&.116

between the undulator modules to provide additional
focusing for the beam. A quadrupole misalignment error
If we assume that the statistics of 6, and A0 are in-
would then produce a dispersion which would produce
dependent, we obtain
debunching. This effect can be taken into account by
,,#+Ui,) = (e’“)(e”‘H), modifying Eq. ( 1I ) as


where D and p are the average dispersion and the bending
radius due to the misalignment errors.
Averaging over the electron distribution, we obtain the For this effect to be small we need to have D/p < 1/y’,
reduction in the intensity due to the phase de-coherence. To estimate the effect we assume to have a quadrupole
doublet with a gradient G. and a misalignment error St. We
(12) treat the doublet as a FODO array with bending dipoles
and assume that it produces a small phase advance per cell
Here g,, is the rms angular divergence. in the I-direction, (this condition is a necessary to avoid a gain reduction due
which is assumed to be the same as that in the v-direction, to betron oscillations). To first approximation the condition
and g6 is the rms relative energy spread. D/p < I/y’ can then be written as SC< IO ‘/G(T/m).
For LCLS parameters given before and with d = 25 cm, which indicates that for G - IO T/m we have a tolerance
we obtain S[< IO ‘m.

In calculating the second number. we have used a, -p -
We wish to thank Bill Fawley for discussions on this
IO-‘, the value of the energy modulation expected well
into the exponential gain regime. Thus. the phase de-
coherence due to the energy spread is negligible. On the
other hand the phase de-coherence due to the angular
spread is not entirely negligible with a reduction factor

1 [I] For a review see. K.-J. Kim, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A 3%
~ = 0.87.
( 1.07)? (1995) 31.
[2] H. Winick et al., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A 347 (1994) 199.
The intensity reduction per interruption is about 13%. [3] M. Xie. to be published.
In some cases we would like to use quadrupoles