You are on page 1of 5



CERN, Geneva, Switzerland

Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati (Roma), Italy

Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, ~].S.A.

Received 23 February 1971 The influence upon axial stability in an electron ring of the diffraction radiation reaction force, generated by a ring moving in an acceleration column, is calculated theoretically. A stability criterion is obtained, and numerical examples show that the criterion is not an important constraint upon the choice of parameters or the operation of an electron ring accelerator.

1. Introduction It is well known that the diffraction radiation by an electron ring in the acceleration column of an electron ring accelerator (ERA) is an important effect insofar as it can cause significant loss of energy of the ring1'2). The effect of the diffraction radiation upon the internal dynamics of the ring has not so far been studied, although it is clear that the large energy radiation could easily have a significant effect upon ring stability in the axial direction, where the f o c u s i n g - c o m i n g only from ions, imagesa), and possibly from the accelerating field - is weak. In this note we study the contribution of diffraction radiation to the axial focusing forces of a ring, limiting our analysis, for convenience, to the case of a ring moving at relativistic speeds. We evaluate the defocusing force for two different geometries: In section 2 we consider a charged rod and a current carrying rod moving past an infinite array of semi-infinite perfectly conducting plates, which geometry has the advantage that the problem may be analyzed analytically. In section 3 we consider a charged ring in an accelerating column consisting of an infinitely long corrugated cylindrical waveguide. The effect of the ring current is not included in this model. In section 4 we evaluate the axial oscillation frequency resulting from defocusing forces, and in section 5 we present some numerical examples. * Work supported in part by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 131

We may obtain a rough estimate of the order-ofmagnitude of the diffraction defocusing from a simple physical model. Consider a charge, Q, moving along the axis of an acceleration column. The complete solution to Maxwell's equation is, in general, difficult to obtain, but roughly speaking there are image charges moving in concert with the charge Q. These images are slightly displaced behind the charge, leading to an axial field, E,, at the charge and hence a net retarding force. The magnitude of the displacement is difficult to estimate. The gradient of this field, which is what determines the focusing force, is, however, not sensitive to the image charge displacement. Thus, in a column of radius a, the field gradient d E J d z in the frame of the moving charge is approximately given by

(dEz)* dz /

a3 "


Thus in the laboratory frame, dEz/dz is proportional to the relativistic v-factor of the charge. The defocusing force of (1) will give a shift in the square of the axial oscillation frequency in the ring frame, (o9~ y)2 of amount

a(°9*v)2 - move* k d z /


where 09* is the revolution frequency in the ring frame and y* is the relativistic v-factor for the circulating electrons. This formula is derived in section 4, although


E. KEIL et al. where fl = v/c, and y = (1 _f12)-½, and P(2,y) is given by eq. (34) of ref. 4. The evaluation of (4), in the limit of y >> 1, follows the procedure employed in section 3 of ref. 4. In particular, eq. (51) is modified to

many readers may consider it obvious. Thus, from (1) and (2):
Av 2 ~ - U r e / ~ a,


where N is the number of electrons in the ring, and r e is the classical electron radius. Taking N = 1013, a = 10cm, and y ~ . = 4 0 - t y p i c a l parameters of an ERA - we obtain Av2 = -- 7. × 10 -3, which is small in comparison with the expected self-focusing. We have, in this simple-minded discussion, ignored magnetic images which for a smooth accelerating column would greatly reduce the Av 2. However, the structure of an accelerating column destroys the nearly perfect electric and magnetic cancellation of a smooth pipe and thus our result - obtained from considering only electric images - is a fair estimation of the effect.

<E(~)> ~ ~

q (4f) x
1 - 2i

x Im with


)fo °







-,1 Y


i 2~ z = - + x/(2) (I +i) ((½) - - ,


2. Semi-infinite plates
In this section we consider as a model of an acceleration column, an infinite set of semi-infinite conducting planes; i.e. a comb. The electron ring is replaced by a charged rod and a current carrying rod moving past the comb. The advantage of this model is that the defocusing f o r c e - j u s t like the radiation loss 4) can be calculated analytically. We employ exactly the notation of ref. 4, which reference will have to be consulted to make the present calculation understandable. The plates are taken in the x - y plane and extend from - oo < y < oo, x > 0. They are separated by the distance 2 nL, while the rod, located at x = - x o, is parallel to the y-axis and moves in the z-direction with speed v. 2.1. CHARGED ROD We first consider a rod having charge q per unit length. We want to compute the electric field in the z-direction due to the charges and currents on the plates, but we only need this field Esz evaluated at x = - Xo, z = vt+tr, and averaged over one period of the structure. F r o m eqs. (8) and (23) and the argument leading from eq. (23) to eq. (36) in ref. 4, it is easy to see that <E(tr)> - < E , z ( - X 0 , z = v t + a , t ) > t = and we have written tr = ao/~. The expression (5) is correct, in the limit of large Y, through the first two terms. Evaluation of the integral yields:



~ ? 2 ~ \ Xo / \


from which follows:
q ~(½), 2nL'~, <E(0)> = LY~ 2~7z \ Xo /


d,~ /~=o

2xo ~


{(?)( q )(1-i//~Y'~ x
= Im ~-L \1 +i/fly/ 2 x° 2 + i ~ l ~ (4) Lr L _1)' x fo~ d;tP2(2, y) exp [ -

The formula for <E(0)> shows that the average energyloss decreases as y - ¢ - which was the major result of ref. 4. On the other hand, the leading term in the defocusing field varies linearly with y. It is easy to see that this leading term corresponds in magnitude 5) to what one would expect from an image rod located at x = +Xo. We have numerically evaluated <E(tr)> from (4) for a number of values of p = 2 nL/xo and for y ranging from 2 to 50. Taking p = 0.5, for y = 5 the asymptotic formula (5) is only in error by 3%, while for y 1> 10 the error is less than 1%. For p = 3.5, the error is about 7% at y = 5, but less than 1% for Y >/ 20. The numerical calculations are important for evaluating how well <E(tr)> is approximated by its value and first derivative at ~ - - 0 . The calculations showed that the diffraction fields (in contrast to the self-field of a rod) were well-approximated by the first two terms of a Taylor series over distances a < Xo/y;






133 then, taking

i.e. a o < Xo. In applications of this model to an ERA we shall always satisfy this condition; i.e. the ring minor dimensions (in the ring frame) should be smaller than the distance from the ring to the accelerating column wall. Thus, in a ring with non-zero minor dimensions, which in the present model would be approximated by a compact bundle of thin rods, the field due to charges and currents on the plates is adequately described by (9) and (10) with q corresponding to the total line charge of the ring. The selffields decrease as y-2 and we can safely neglect them at large y. 2.2. C U R R E N T CARRYING ROD A rod having current in the y-direction of magnitude qfl'c is treated in appendix A of ref. 4. Employing Maxwell's equations to relate H~ to Ey one obtains

For the semi-infinite plate model, q = Ne/2nR, with R the ring radius

K - (g(t)), = - 4NeZYrcRx~ + 3((½)~ \(2nL~½ .3 [1 +(fl'Y)2] " [1 l x o/ 3. Corrugated cylindrical waveguide
In this section we represent the accelerating column by an infinitely long, periodically corrugated cylindrical waveguide with geometrical parameters as shown in fig. 1. We employ the notation of ref. 1 which is necessary for the understanding of what follows. The complete vector potential A (r,t) is given as a sum over the eigenfunctions of the empty waveguide A~(r): (15)

( n ( a ) ) =-- ( H ~ ( - X o , z = vt+a, t)), =

A (r, t) = ~ qz(t) Az(r),



L L?

where the functions qz(t) obey the equation

#z+~o~qa = N~ 1 ~ j.A*dV=f~.


The leading terms in the focusing force are easily seen to be \--~a/~,=o 2x 2 y 1+2---~y \ Xo / d " ~ (12) The energy loss, which is evaluated in ref. 4, varies as (fl'y)2y-L Since the transverse velocity of electrons, in the ring frame, is approximately constant as the ring is accelerated, the quantity fl'y is essentially y-independent (and equal to unity, if the electrons have relativistic transverse velocities before being accelerated axially). Thus the energy loss of a charged rod and a current carrying rod both vary as y -~ (at large y) and in fact are equal in magnitude in this limit. In like manner, the focusing force contributions [eqs. (10) and (12)] become equal in the limit of large y. We believe this equality to be a general (geometry-independent) result. 2.3. FOCUSING FORCE The focusing force on an electron, in the axial direction, is given by F(t)=

N¢ is the number of cells and VN is their volume. If the azimuthal motion of the electrons is neglected, an electron ring with charge Q and geometrical parameters as shown in fig. 1, travelling with speed v, has the current density
Jz ~ 09



x H ( ½ h - l z - v t [ ) H ( p - R O H(R2-p),




ea [OE~(a,t)

L ~-~

fl' OHr(cr't)]

~-~ .=o'


which we write in the form F(t) = K (t) a. (14) Fig. 1. Geometry of a currugated cylindrical waveguide with a charged ring.


E. K E I L

et al.

where H(x) is the Heaviside step function. Performing the integration in (17) with A~ from ref. 1 yields:

Using (23), (24) and (25) we find the electric field gradient in the limit N~ ~ oo: lim t3Eza
Nc~oo ~Z z=vt

fz = _

Qv____~i~ AmS(½flmh) J(Zm) eXp(iflmVt). Ne Ogz m


= Qdiogf2AtS(½ogah/v)j(o9a/yv) × (26)

The factors S(x) = x - ~ sin x and J take into account the finite dimensions of the electron ring; J is given by

× ~ AmflmS(½flmh) J(Zm)COSogztexp(-iflmVt ).

J(Zm) = 2 [ R 2 J I ( Z m R 2 ) - R ' J ' ( z ' R ' ) ] Zm(R22 " R~)Jo(Zm a)


When this expression is averaged over the time necessary to traverse one period of the structure the sum reduces to a single term and yields: lim OEza '~ = Qdi [AtS(½ogah/v)j(og~/yv)]2" Nc-~o~ Oz z =vt/ 2 oga v (27) Since At is not available in closed form, it is advantageous to compare (27) to the energy Ux radiated in the 2th mode in one period of the structure, calculated in ref. 1. We find lim OEza ~ = ogzUa (28)

The propagation constants fl~ and Xm are defined in ref. 1 by flo = oga/v-2 M/d with l chosen such that [flol <~ nld, fl,.= flo + 2 nm/d, ~m2 ---- O,)JC2 2 fl~.2 With the Arc cavities centred at z--O, and with j from (18), f~(t) = 0 for It[ >1 T = ½ N¢ d/v, and hence for t >~ T, q~(t) is given by

qa(t ) = o9~-1 which becomes




Qdi qx(t) = - 2coZ ~ AmS(½flmh ) J(Z,.) × x
x {[S(49 +) + S(q~-)] sin o9~t + + [S(49 +) - S(q6-)] i cos o9~ t}, (22)

The total electric field gradient

-~-~ Iz = o,/ is obtained by summing (28) over all modes. Because of the factor oga it converges less rapidly as a function of ogz than the energy loss Ua. Finally, we wish to remind the reader that in this section we have neglected ring current effects. 4. Evaluation of the axial frequency In order to evaluate internal ring dynamics it is convenient to work in the frame of reference in which the ring is at rest. In this frame, axial motion of electrons is described by
d2z*/dt*2+og*2V2oZ* =

where 49+ = ½ N~ d(oga/v+flm), and S(~b)= 49-' sin 49 as above. For Arc~ ~ , the contributions to qa come from two resonances with oga_+fltv = 0 in the notation of ref. 1. In that limit we find: lim qa (t) = - Qdiog"~2 At S (½ ogz h/v) J (oga/yv) sin o9~ t.
N c --*or)

(23) This result is multiplied by a factor of two because two resonance conditions are fulfilled at the same frequency by waves travelling in opposite directions which are counted as one mode in ref. 1. The electric field gradient for the 2th mode is



OE~a Oz z = , , = -


c~Aza ~---~1~=~,"


The z-derivative of the vector potential, averaged over the minor ring dimensions, follows from ref. 1:

OoAzZz= vt : - og-~l Z Am flm S (½ flm h ) J (zm)
x exp (-iflm vt). (25)

where o9* is the revolution frequency, Vo describes the focusing due to ions, images, and the accelerating wave, 7" is the relativistic y-factor for the circulating electrons, and F* is the axial force on an electron due to the diffraction radiation. The absence of a star on Vo follows from its invariance under Lorentz transformation. We have neglected the change in energy of an electron in the interval of an axial oscillation. From (14), and the invariance of longitudinal force under Lorentz transformation, we have F* (t*) = K (t) a , (30)



which, since z* = aTN, becomes
F * ( t * ) = K ( t ) z*/71l.

The corrugated cylindrical waveguide model for a charged ring (ring currents ignored) yields (31)
B = 27rR~l/a 3 ,

In the case of relativistic axial ring velocity (711 >> 1) and for closely spaced accelerating cavities, the time variation of K ( t ) is rapid compared with an axial oscillation period, and we may average K ( t ) over time. Thus letting
K =- ( K ( t ) ) ,



and combining (29), (31), and (32), we have
d 2 z */dt*2 + o9" 2 v 2 z* = O,


where the coefficient rl(b/a, d / a , g / a , 7) is a weak function of all of its arguments. Computations for a large number of cases indicate that r/ < 0.5. As remarked at the end of section 2.2, we expect that in the relativistic limit ring current effects should introduce an additional factor of 2 in ~/. Taking as typical values, N = 1013, R = 3 . 0 c m , 7" = 40 one finds, from (36) v2 = v2 - 3 . 2 x 10 - 2 B . (39)

where the total axial betatron oscillation frequency v is given by

= vo-K/(moT±







We introduce the quantity B, by writing
= ( N e E 711~2fiR)



where N is the number of electrons in the electron ring and R is the ring major radius. Clearly B has the dimensions of inverse length squared. The factor 711 has been inserted merely for convenience. From (34) and (35)
v 2 = v 2 - N r e R B / ( 2 IrT*r) .

Thus (37) with x 0 ~ 1 0 . 0 c m and 711 >> I yields v2 = v 2 - 1 . 6 x 1 0 - 4 ; while (38) with R = 3 . 0 c m , a = 10.0 cm and r/= 1.0 (to include magnetic effects) yields v 2 = vg - 6 . 0 x 10-4). These defocusing effects are small, and presumably can be easily overcome in practice by means of ion focusing or image focusing.


In (36), r e is the classical electron radius and we have employed ~o~ ~ c / R in deriving the equation. The quantity B, upon which v2 depends, is a function of the geometry of the accelerating structure and of ring speed. For B > 0, the diffraction radiation reaction is a defocusing effect. Axial stability follows if v2 is positive, and hence to obtain stability when B > 0 requires that a non-zero amount of focusing be supplied by ions, images, or the accelerating wave. We have not concerned ourselves with radial motion in this note as the focusing - from ions, images, and the external field - i s strong in this direction, and there is no near danger of loss of radial stability. Crossing of a resonance by a relativistic ring would - presumably - not be serious.

We are grateful to our colleagues in the Berkeley Electron Ring Accelerator G r o u p for stimulating discussions and helpful comments. We wish to thank Richard Hazeltine for having carefully checked the calculation of section 2 and, in particular, for correcting a previous error in section 2.2. One of us (C. Pellegrini) is thankful for having been able to spend a year in Berkeley, during which term this present work was initiated.

1) E. Keil, On the energy loss of a charged ring passing a corrugated cylindrical waveguide, CERN Internal Report ISR/TH/69-49(1969); and in Proc. 7th Intern. Conf. Accelerators (Yerevan, USSR, Sept. 1969) to be published. 2) j. D. Lawson, Rapporteur's paper, ibid. z) L.J. Laslett, On the focussing effects arising from the selffields of a toroidal beam, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory Internal Report ERAN-30 (1969). 4) R . D . Hazeltine, M . N . Rosenbluth and A . M . Sessler, J. Math. Phys. 12 (1971) 502. 5) The sign is just wrong, however. The reason for this is that in the plate structure, since the plates are perpendicular to the direction of motion of the rod, the boundary conditions are satisfied, to fair approximation, by an image rod of the s a m e sign as the rod (thus minimizing hrx along the plates); hence the reversed sign in (dE/dtr).

5. Numerical examples In this section we evaluate (36) for the structures discussed in sections 2 and 3. The semi-infinite plate model, after replacing the charge per unit length q by N e / 2 7rR and setting fl'7 = 1, yields, from (15),
B = (1/x 2) [ 1 - 0 . 7 7 8 (27rL/711Xo)~]. (37)