Untitled

i
The dissertation of Gil A. Travish is approved.
David Cline
Claudio Pellegrini
Eli Yablonovitch
James Rosenzweig, Committee Chair
University of California, Los Angeles
1996
ii
This work is dedicated to the anonymous millions who have suffered
under tyranny, and to the few who have tried to help them.
iii
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
Introduction and History ............................................................................2
1.1: Development of the FEL....................................................................................3
1.1.1: Present Generation Developments and Trends................................9
1.2: Motivation for this Experiment......................................................................12
1.2.1: Short Wavelength Work.....................................................................14
1.3: Overview of the UCLA IR FEL.......................................................................16
1.4: Organization ......................................................................................................23
Chapter 2
FEL Theory..................................................................................................27
2.1: Overview of High–Gain Systems ..................................................................28
2.2: 1D Analysis ........................................................................................................33
2.2.1: Physical Model of an FEL ..................................................................34
2.2.2: The Basic KMR Equations..................................................................37
2.2.3: High–Gain Theory ..............................................................................48
2.2.3.1: KMR Equations with a Complex Amplitude ...............................49
2.2.3.2: The Collective Variable Description.............................................50
2.2.3.3: Exponential Gain..........................................................................53
2.2.3.4: Bandwidth, Energy Spread and Angular Effects.........................56
2.2.3.5: The FEL Universal Parameter......................................................59
2.2.3.6: Estimate of Bunching ...................................................................61
2.3: Start–up Analytic Models................................................................................63
2.3.1: Spontaneous Emission Basics............................................................66
2.3.2: Limits of Validity.................................................................................71
2.4: The 3D Analytic Model....................................................................................80
2.5: Bunching and Coherent Transition Radiation............................................81
2.5.1: Transition Radiation ...........................................................................81
2.5.2: Equations for the Microbunching Diagnostic.................................83
2.6: Focusing in Planar Undulators.......................................................................89
iv
2.6.1: Overview of Undulator Focusing.....................................................90
2.6.2: Natural Focusing.................................................................................92
2.6.3: Focusing and SASE.............................................................................96
2.7: Chapter Summary .............................................................................................97
Chapter 3 ..................................................................................................... 98
Predictions................................................................................................... 98
3.1: Analytic Results.................................................................................................99
3.1.1: Start–up...............................................................................................100
3.1.2: 1D FEL Model....................................................................................101
3.1.3: 3D FEL Model....................................................................................103
3.2: Need for, and Capabilities of, Numerical Tools.......................................103
3.3: Time–Independent Simulations ..................................................................107
3.3.1: Numerics of TDA3D.........................................................................108
3.3.2: Beam Current
3.3.2.1: Discussion and Nominal Values................................................111
3.3.2.2: Current Fluctuations..................................................................117
3.3.2.3: Current Diagnostics Ramifications............................................118
3.3.3: Electron Beam Size
3.3.3.2: Beam Size Fluctuations ..............................................................120
3.3.3.3: Ramification of Beam Size Diagnostic Limitations....................123
3.3.4: Emittance Variation
3.3.4.2: Emittance Variation Impact.......................................................128
3.3.4.3: Emittance Diagnostic Ramifications..........................................129
3.3.5: Energy Spread Alteration ................................................................130
3.3.5.2: Variation of Energy Spread........................................................131
3.3.5.3: Energy Spread Diagnostic Implications.....................................132
3.3.6: Undulator Errors...............................................................................133
3.3.7: Mixed Parameter Variations............................................................134
3.3.8: Time Independent Study Summary...............................................134
3.4: Time Dependent Simulations ......................................................................135
3.4.1: Noise ...................................................................................................135
3.4.2: Slippage ..............................................................................................141
3.5: Chapter Summary ...........................................................................................143
Chapter 4
Electron Beam Overview ........................................................................ 146
4.1: The Laboratory.................................................................................................147
v
4.2: The Beamline ...................................................................................................149
4.3: The Gun ............................................................................................................150
4.3.1: Gun Design ........................................................................................151
4.3.2: Cathode Considerations...................................................................153
4.3.3: Emittance Compensation.................................................................156
4.3.4: Gun Simulation..................................................................................158
4.4: The Linac...........................................................................................................160
4.4.1: Design .................................................................................................160
4.5: Transport Line .................................................................................................162
4.5.1: Magnetic Optics.................................................................................162
4.6: Support Systems..............................................................................................168
4.6.1: Laser....................................................................................................169
4.6.1.1: Layout.........................................................................................170
4.6.1.2: Design and Performance ............................................................171
4.6.2: RF.........................................................................................................173
4.6.2.1: Attenuators/ Phase shifter..........................................................175
4.7: Chapter Summary ...........................................................................................177
Chapter 5
Electron Beam Diagnostics .....................................................................179
5.1: Overview and Analysis Methods.................................................................180
5.2: Faraday Cup Beam Dumps
5.2.1: Description and Purpose..................................................................181
5.2.2: Accuracy and Bandwidth ................................................................182
5.2.3: Sources of Noise and Problems.......................................................184
5.3: Integrating Current Transformer
5.4: Screens
5.5: Energy Spectrometer
5.6: Emittance slits..................................................................................................201
5.6.1: Emittance Measurement Overview................................................202
5.6.2: Design Considerations for the Slits ................................................205
vi
5.7: Beam Position Monitors
5.8: Coherent Transition Radiation Bunching Foil
5.9: Chapter Summary ...........................................................................................223
Chapter 6
Photon Beam Overview ..........................................................................226
6.1: The Undulator..................................................................................................227
6.1.1: The Undulator Design......................................................................228
6.1.2: Measurements....................................................................................231
6.1.2.1: Hall Probe...................................................................................232
6.1.2.2: Pulsed–Wire System...................................................................235
6.2: IR Diagnostics..................................................................................................238
6.2.1: Transport and Optics........................................................................239
6.2.2: The IR Detector and Background....................................................242
6.3: Chapter Summary ...........................................................................................248
Chapter 7
Conclusions...............................................................................................250
Chapter 8
Appendices ............................................................................................... 253
8.1: Spontaneous Emission Calculations...........................................................254
8.2: Three Dimensional Analytic FEL Model Results.....................................258
8.3: Bunching Monitor Calculations...................................................................264
8.4: Strong Focusing in Planar Undulators........................................................269
8.4.1: Focusing Schemes .............................................................................269
8.4.2: Strong Sextupole Focusing ..............................................................273
8.4.3: Matrix Description of AG Focusing ...............................................280
8.4.4: Implementing AG Sextupole Focusing..........................................284
8.4.5: Numerical Examples.........................................................................285
8.4.6: Comparison of Sextupole to Quadrupole Focusing.....................289
vii
8.4.7: Strong Focusing Conclusions ..........................................................291
8.5: Calculations for the Emittance Slits ............................................................293
8.6: Beam Trajectory Calculation.........................................................................296
8.7: IR Optics Calculator .......................................................................................298
8.8: Black Body Background Estimation............................................................300
8.9: Additional Support Systems
8.9.1: Radiation Shielding Bunker.............................................................304
8.9.2: Facilities Support...............................................................................306
8.9.3: Alignment System.............................................................................308
8.9.4: Vacuum System.................................................................................310
8.9.5: Control and Data Acquisition .........................................................312
8.9.5.1: Computer System .......................................................................313
8.9.5.2: Timing ........................................................................................315
8.9.5.3: Magnet System...........................................................................317
8.9.5.4: Video System ..............................................................................319
8.9.5.5: Control and Acquisition Capabilities.........................................321
Acronym Glossary ................................................................................... 323
References..................................................................................................326
Reference Index ........................................................................................ 347
Word Index ............................................................................................... 352
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: A simple wiggler or undulator. Pairs of magnets with alternating

orientations are arranged in a periodic structure.................................4
Figure 1.2: Various past FELs are plotted comparing the wavelength to the
total gain (both oscillators and amplifiers are shown). .......................5
Figure 2.1: The basic components of a single–pass FEL........................................29
Figure 2.2: A simplified block diagram of a single–pass FEL. The “radiation in”
box represents either a coherent input source or the effective start-up
power from spontaneous . .....................................................................29
Figure 2.3: A sketch of the optical beam and some descriptive parameters......30
Figure 2.4: Undulator parameters represented in pictorial form. The arrows

along the undulator represent the magnetic field directions. ..........31
Figure 2.5: Five frames of single particle motion in an FEL.................................35
Figure 2.6: A cartoon of phase bunching occurring to a particle distribution in

ponderomotive potential........................................................................36
Figure 2.7: The geometry used here for a planar undulator.................................39
Figure 2.8: Bunching of an initially uniform distribution by a ponderomotive

potential....................................................................................................42
Figure 2.9: The small–gain lineshape function.......................................................47
Figure 2.10: An idealized plot of the power growth in the FEL showing the
start–up from a small input signal (lethargy), the exponential growth
and saturation..........................................................................................55
ix
Figure 2.11: A plot of the imaginary part of the root of the FEL cubic equation,
Im(l), as a function of the detuning parameter, d...............................57
Figure 2.12: The geometry for off–axis observation of undulator radiation (from
Murphy and Pellegrini [116])................................................................58
Figure 2.13: A simplistic self amplified spontaneous emission model. A portion

of the spontaneous emission produced in the first gain length of the
undulator is amplified by the remainder of the undulator...............65
Figure 2.14: The angular distribution of the spontaneous emission as a function

of the distance along the undulator is shown graphically................70
Figure 2.15: The expected number of TR photons per unit angle, and within a
1% bandwidth, as a function of angle..................................................82
Figure 2.16: Conceptual diagram of the coherent transition radiation

microbunching diagnostic. ....................................................................84
Figure 3.1: Flowchart of author’s method of analyzing an FEL by using a

combination of analytic formulas and numerical models...............105
Figure 3.2: The input/output structure of TDA3D..............................................110
Figure 3.3: FEL output power gain versus beam current. ..................................113
Figure 3.4: FEL gain length versus beam current. ...............................................114
Figure 3.5: The beam size at the undulator entrance in the two transverse planes
for various beam currents....................................................................116
Figure 3.6: The optical beam size at the exit of the undulator as a function of
electron beam current. The optical beam size is given as the radius
which contains half the optical power. ..............................................117
Figure 3.7: Plot of FEL total gain versus beam current including diagnostic
uncertainties (in current). The shaded area shows the uncertainty
introduced by the limited accuracy of the current diagnostic........119
Figure 3.8: Geometry of the ballistic beam trajectory in the non–wiggle plane.
The gray line indicates a beam envelope waist, σ1, which is off
center.......................................................................................................122
x
Figure 3.9: The optical beam size as a function of the beam emittance. All other
parameters, including the input electron beam size, were kept
constant...................................................................................................125
Figure 3.10: Total gain as function of beam emittance (normalized RMS). .......126
Figure 3.11: Gain length versus normalized RMS beam emittance.....................127
Figure 3.12: Plot of the FEL total gain versus beam emittance including diagnostic
uncertainties. The shaded area indicates the uncertainty introduced
by the emittance diagnostic. ................................................................130
Figure 3.13: Energy spread variation and the total gain of the PBPL FEL. Due to
the entrance of the undulator (after 2 gain lengths).........................131
Figure 3.14: A numerical simulation showing the time dependence of the

spontaneous start up noise generated by a beam with PBPL–like
parameters near the entrance of the undulator (after 2 gain lengths).
..................................................................................................................138
Figure 3.15: The same plot as in Figure 3.14, but well within the exponential
regime (after ~ 8 gain lengths). ...........................................................139
Figure 3.16: Simulations showing the scaled power (EL = Pavg ρPbeam ) as a function
of the scaled distance ( z ≡ z/L g ) along the undulator. Note the
fluctuations in both the gain length (distance to saturation) and the
saturation level. .....................................................................................140
Figure 3.17 Two 3D simulations performed with fixed input (radiation) power.
The solid line is for the no slip case (S=0) while the dashed line
takes into account slippage. Note the difference in saturated power
levels and the onset of super–radiance after saturation from the slip
case. .........................................................................................................142
Figure 4.1: The floor plan of the UCLA Particle Beam Physics Laboratory.....147
Figure 4.2: The complete electron beamline for the UCLA Infrared Free Electron
Laser........................................................................................................149
Figure 4.3: The PBPL RF photocathode gun shown in cross–section. ..............152
xi
Figure 4.4: Design of the PBPL cathode plug. Of note is the wide groove for
housing a helically wound, canted beryllium–copper spring that
provides a superior RF joint with minimal mechanical resistance
compared to previous ridged springs................................................155
Figure 4.5: An example of phase space before (left) and after (right) emittance
compensation. Note that the “tails” of the distribution are not
compensated. These plots were generated with a numerical
simulation. The case shown here is actually of the Plane Wave
Transformer (PWT) acting as a gun....................................................157
Figure 4.6: The measured field distribution of the PBPL solenoids. The entrance
and exit of the solenoid yoke are indicated by the dashed and solid
vertical lines, respectively. The measurement axis is arbitrary, and
the measurement was ended at 51 cm for technical reasons..........157
Figure 4.7: PARMELA simulation results showing emittance compensation in

the PBPL system....................................................................................158
Figure 4.8: PARMELA results for the beam envelope as a function of distance
from the gun. The case shown here is for the optimal initial beam
size (≈ 650 µm) and a field gradient of ≈100 MV/m. The solenoid
field maximum is at ≈ 20 cm................................................................159
Figure 4.9: The Plane Wave Transformer Linac in cross–section. This

third–generation design incorporates internal water temperature
control.....................................................................................................161
Figure 4.10: MacTrace3D output for the PBPL beamline set to match into the
undulator................................................................................................165
Figure 4.11: The PBPL drive laser with major components labeled....................170
Figure 4.12: The basic schematic of the RF system. ...............................................174
Figure 4.13: The high–power RF waveguide layout..............................................175
Figure 4.14: The gun high power attenuator calibration. Attenuation in dB as a

function of position sensor reading (a variable resistor) is given..176
Figure 4.15: The linac high power attenuator calibration. Attenuation in dB as a

function of position sensor reading (a variable resistor) is given..176
xii
Figure 5.1: A PBPL Faraday cup/beam dump shown in cross–section. The cup
was machined from graphite and housed in conventional stainless
steel vacuum components....................................................................182
Figure 5.2: A picture of an oscilloscope trace showing the voltage from the
Faraday cup on the vertical scale and time on the horizontal scale.
The ringing of the signal is due to noise. The top trace is an unrelated
measurement..........................................................................................183
Figure 5.3: A schematic diagram of the Integrating Current Transformer showing

the equivalent electrical circuit. ..........................................................186
Figure 5.4: Installation of the ICT on the beamline..............................................187
Figure 5.5: The calibration apparatus for the Integrating Current Transformer...
..................................................................................................................188
Figure 5.6: A calibration histogram of the ICT. The ICT response to several
input pulses was recorded...................................................................189
Figure 5.7: The PBPL phosphor screen, mount and actuator assembly. ..........191
Figure 5.8: The screen diagnostic system including the CCD camera and lens....
..................................................................................................................192
Figure 5.9: A typical digitized image from a fluorescent screen. The white spot
is the photocurrent. The three black dots framing the white beam
spot are alignment marks ~ 1 cm apart..............................................193
Figure 5.10: The response time of the PBPL screens measured with a photodiode
and recorded on an oscilloscope.........................................................194
Figure 5.11: The PBPL energy spectrometer showing the beam path through the
quadrupoles, dipole bend and screen diagnostic.............................197
Figure 5.12: Results of a Transport simulation showing the beam envelope along
the beamline, including quads and the bend dipole. The simulation
is ended at the approximate location of the screen (2.0 m), and the
approximate location of the magnets is indicated at the top of the
graph.......................................................................................................198
Figure 5.13: The emittance ellipse shown with some relevant Twiss parameters. .
..................................................................................................................201
xiii
Figure 5.14: A cartoon of a one–dimensional pepper–pot (slit) scheme.............203
Figure 5.15: The geometry of an emittance slit system along with the relevant
notation...................................................................................................203
Figure 5.16: A typical emittance–slit image digitized and stored for off–line
analysis. ..................................................................................................204
Figure 5.17: A cartoon of the emittance slit measurement technique.................206
Figure 5.18: The BNL/ATF and UCLA/PBPL stripline BPM pickups. The overall
length of the striplines is 1.5 times the system RF frequency to
allow for heterodyning with the master RF oscillator. ....................215
Figure 5.19: The front–end BPM signal–processing unit (taken from J. T. Rogers,
et al.)........................................................................................................216
Figure 5.20: The PBPL CTR bunching diagnostic. Note that the IR diagnostic
section can be identical to that used for the FEL itself.....................218
Figure 5.21: The CTR photon wavenumber spectrum as a function of

wavenumber. Note the peak at about 22 µm, the wavelength of the
simulated bunching. For clarity, the result shown here is for 10%
bunching. Only the amplitude changes when examining the lower
bunching expected from the PBPL FEL. ............................................219
Figure 5.22: The CTR photon angular spectrum as a function of emission angle.
Note how narrow the peak is compared to the incoherent emission..
..................................................................................................................220
Figure 6.1: Diagram of the PBPL/Kurchatov undulator showing a side view.

The lengths shown are in inches.........................................................228
Figure 6.2: An internal cross–section of the PBPL undulator. The markers refer
to 1) Vanadium–Permandur C–shaped yokes, 2)
Neodymium–Iron–Boron pole tip magnets, 3) Samarium–Cobalt
booster magnets, 4) Hall–detectors support plate, 5) Translation stage
for support plate....................................................................................229
Figure 6.3: A front (beamline) view of the PBPL/Kurchatov undulator. The

outer dimensions are in inches............................................................230
xiv
Figure 6.4: A cartoon of the undulator Hall–probe measurement system showing
the data acquisition computer, Hall–probe carriage and translating
stepping–motor. ....................................................................................232
Figure 6.5: The result of typical field measurements of the PBPL undulator
using the Hall probe system. The data shown is at an intermediate
gap setting, thus the field is lower than the stated peak of ≈7.5 kG. ...
..................................................................................................................233
Figure 6.6: The second integral of the undulator field, numerically calculated
from the Hall probe field measurements. The lines with arrows
highlight the minimum and maximum excursion of the calculated
beam trajectory. .....................................................................................234
Figure 6.7: A schematic of the pulse wire undulator measurement system....235
Figure 6.8: The second integral of the undulator field measured using the pulsed
wire and displayed on an oscilloscope. .............................................237
Figure 6.9: An example of an off–axis field measured using the pulsed wire. In
this case, the wire was displaced 0.5 mm from center in the wiggle
plane........................................................................................................238
Figure 6.10: A layout of the exit of the electron beamline. The distance from the
undulator exit to the beamline end is fixed by available hardware
and experimental needs. ......................................................................239
Figure 6.11: The factors which determine the geometry of the beamline are
displayed graphically. ..........................................................................240
Figure 6.12: A more complete IR diagnostics layout including wavelength

detection, filters and beam–size diagnostics.....................................242
Figure 6.13: The detailed geometry of the IR detector with a cold stop.............245
Figure 6.14: The dimensions of relevance for the Winston cone condenser......247
Figure 8.1: A cartoon of an undulator magnet with external quadrupole focusing.

..................................................................................................................270
Figure 8.2: An undulator magnet with canted poles. The canting angle as well
as the perspective are exaggerated for clarity...................................271
Figure 8.3: Ion focusing for an FEL is depicted in this diagram........................272
xv
Figure 8.4: A sketch of the lower half of an undulator employing Scharlemann’s
shaped poles...........................................................................................273
Figure 8.5: Results of numerical simulations show the length of undulator

required to reach saturation as a function of the strong sextupole
focusing phase advance per cell. Large phase advances imply poor
FEL performance...................................................................................283
Figure 8.6: Sextupole AG focusing for planar undulators using pole shaping. A
set of poles which focus (F) is followed by a set of poles which
defocus (D) in order to form a FD lattice. This is repeated (FDFD…FD)
the length of the undulator..................................................................284
Figure 8.7: Permanent magnets configured in planar arrays to produce a

sextupole field on–axis.........................................................................285
Figure 8.8: Sextupole focusing in the SLAC based x–ray FEL. Analytic results
using a smooth approximation are plotted for comparison. ..........287
Figure 8.9: Sextupole focusing performance calculated numerically for the

Paladin undulator using a SLAC beam is compared to the results
from analytic theory with a smooth approximation. The natural
(weak) focusing case would be off the vertical scale on this plot. .288
Figure 8.10: A comparison of quadrupole and sextupole focusing in an FEL.

Analytic results are also plotted for comparison. The
emittance–limited optimal focusing is indicated by the vertical line
(at 5 meters)............................................................................................291
Figure 8.11: A cross–section of the shielding door showing the layers of material.
..................................................................................................................305
Figure 8.12: A side diagram of the shielding bunker showing some of the
penetrations............................................................................................306
Figure 8.13: The layout of the PBPL electrical system. Sub panels are indicated
by an “sp”...............................................................................................307
Figure 8.14: A cartoon of the fixed alignment system employing optical tables,
an alignment rod and machined brackets and supports.................309
Figure 8.15: The PBPL control system .....................................................................312
xvi
Figure 8.16: The control room main console, CAMAC rack and power supplies. .
..................................................................................................................313
Figure 8.17: The control computer topology. .........................................................314
Figure 8.18: The PBPL trigger system......................................................................315
Figure 8.19: Timing sequence for a few signals on the RF and control systems. ....
..................................................................................................................316
Figure 8.20: The PBPL magnet system.....................................................................318
Figure 8.21: The PBPL video system........................................................................319
Figure 8.22: The video trigger distribution system................................................320
xvii
List of Tables
Table 1.1: One set of design parameters for the Linac Coherent Light Source.15
Table 1.2: Electron beam parameters expected for the PBPL IRFEL. ................17
Table 1.3: Undulator parameters measured for the PBPL IRFEL. .....................20
Table 1.4: FEL simulation results for the PBPL IRFEL. The peak power is given
after one gain length, as well as at the end of the undulator............21
Table 1.5: A list of notation used in this document..............................................25
Table 2.1: A summary of the parameters used to describe an FEL in a simple

model. .......................................................................................................33
Table 3.1: The nominal parameters of the PBPL FEL. .........................................99
Table 3.2: A summary of the spontaneous emission from the PBPL FEL
calculated both numerically and analytically...................................101
Table 3.3: Evaluation of tests for the 1D limit for the PBPL FEL. ....................101
Table 3.4: Results using the one–dimensional model on the PBPL FEL.........102
Table 3.5: Results using the three–dimensional model on the PBPL FEL. .....103
Table 3.6: Comparison of effective input noise power with experiments

performed at LLNL. The FEL parameter r is indicated for each device.
..................................................................................................................106
xviii
Table 3.7: The electron beam size at the undulator entrance for various values
of the beam current. The results are from MacTrace3D which accounts
for space charge. All magnet settings are assumed fixed at the values
optimized for the nominal 200 A and a beam energy of 17 MeV. .115
Table 3.8: Effect of beam current fluctuations on FEL performance. ..............118
Table 3.9: Effect of beam emittance variations on FEL performance. Note that
the nominal gain shown here differs slightly from previous results
due to minor difference in the simulation parameters....................129
Table 3.10: The effect of energy spread on FEL performance.............................132
Table 3.11: A summary of the effect on the FEL gain for fluctuations in various
beam parameters...................................................................................135
Table 3.12: The PBPL IR FEL parameters used in this section. The calculated
cooperation length and slippage parameter are also given. The
emittance listed and used in the simulations is larger than the design
figure.......................................................................................................137
Table 4.1: The PBPL RF photocathode gun parameters....................................153
Table 4.2: Design parameters of the PWT linac..................................................161
Table 4.3: The quadrupole magnet characteristics.............................................163
Table 4.4: The beam parameters needed to match into the PBPL undulator
and the corresponding quadrupole settings. ....................................165
Table 4.5: The dipole magnet characteristics. .....................................................166
Table 4.6: The steering coils’ characteristics........................................................168
Table 4.7: PBPL drive laser design parameters...................................................172
Table 5.1: Summary of the Faraday Cup performance......................................185
Table 5.2: Summary of ICT performance.............................................................190
Table 5.3: Summary of the screen performance. ................................................196
Table 5.4: Summary of Energy spectrometer performance. .............................200
xix
Table 5.5: Final emittance slits measurement system design parameters. .....211
Table 5.6: Numerical design criterion and figures of merit for the PBPL
emittance slits. .......................................................................................212
Table 5.7: Summary of the emittance slit diagnostic performance. The

specifications of the slits are closely tied to those of the screens. ..214
Table 5.8: Summary of beam position monitor performance...........................217
Table 5.9: Summary of CTR bunching diagnostic performance. .....................223
Table 5.10: A summary of the beam diagnostic performance with the accuracy
indicated as a percentage of nominal readings for the respective
beam parameter.....................................................................................224
Table 6.1: The undulator design parameters for the PBPL FEL.......................231
Table 6.2: The PBPL IR detector’s characteristics. The detector is a commercial

unit (CU-17 from EG&G Judson) with a liquid helium dewar. .....243
Table 6.3: A comparison of the total FEL output and the blackbody background
shot–noise (the square root of the number of photons) collected by
the detector.............................................................................................247
Table 8.1: The nominal beam and undulator parameters for the proposed SLAC
x–ray FEL................................................................................................286
Table 8.2: One set of parameters for use of the Paladin undulator at SLAC..289
xx
About this Document
This thesis began life as a Word 6 (die Bill, die) for the Macintosh master
document, with files for each chapter. Technical difficulties (Word sucks) required
switching to Nisus Writer. Most of the work was performed on a Power Macintosh
7100/80 with 24 MB of RAM. The text and equations were written using the
Palatino font, Greek characters were in Symbol, and labels in drawings were in
Helvetica. Equations were set using MathType. Drawings were created primarily
in ClarisDraw, with some early versions originally done in ClarisCAD. Bitmap
graphics (photographs and scanned images) were processed using Photoshop.
Most graphics were imbedded in the document using Publish and Subscribe.
References were created using Endnote Plus.
The document was printed on a Laserwriter 360, with 600 dpi.
xxi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
As an advisor of mine once reminded me, ‘Physics is about people, not
hardware or institutions.’ Following these wise words, I would like to thank each
person who helped me in my pursuit of knowledge. The many of you who
helped me know that I greatly appreciate your efforts. A number of people who
assisted me and positively affected my life are not listed here, but I thank them
nonetheless.
Professors Claudio Pellegrini and Jamie Rosenzweig are my physics raison
d’être. Claudio’s abilities as a physicist may be known world over, but his abilities
as a mentor and sage are only known to those of us lucky enough to have
worked with him. Jamie is my advisor, my guide through the physics career
maze, and my friend. I have been greatly enriched by working with both Jamie
and Claudio. Both were caring and wise. They afforded me great latitude in my
research, and extended me all possible resources.
In addition to my professors, Professors David Cline and Eli Yablonovitch
were on my committee. They have been helpful and understanding, especially
about last minute deadlines, throughout. Professor Cline has also been my teacher
and collaborator.
This thesis would have not been begun if not for the advice of Dick Cooper.
I have also learned about many things from him: computers, programing, the
English language, history… Dick, thanks for the support and the hyphens.
The most rewarding aspect of being a graduate student is commiserating
and collaborating with fellow students. In this capacity, Mark Hogan and I have
shared virtually all aspects of our research. Mark has contributed greatly to the
efforts in the laboratory and to this work. I hope he has benefited as much from
xxii
our interactions and I have. I also hope he learns how to use a watch. Thanks for
everything Mark, see you in zero G!
A university is empty without students, and a university laboratory is
equally empty without students. Our lab has been graced by some of the most
motivated and hard working undergraduates — we also had some lazy ones, but
they know who they are! Thanks to fellow graduate students Nick Barov, Sven
Reiche, Parviz Saghizadeh, Phong Tran and Aaron Tremaine. And, my gratitude
to the undergraduates who made it possible to build the lab, and put up with me:
Jesse Caulfied, Sonja Daffer, Mark Fauver, Pedro Frigola, Parviz Ghavamian,
Beth Gitter, Mark Goertemiller, Dominic Gooden, Chris Hall, Rick Hedrick, Dan
MacIntosh, Alex Murokh, Janki Patel, Katrin Shenk, Jordan Stevens, Soren Telfer,
Cesar Ternieden, Sedrick Wells, Jason Wingo.
In addition to the people at UCLA, I owe my graditude to a number of
people around the world: Dennis Palmer, Luca Serafini, Paolo Pierini, Rodolfo
Bonifacio, Herman Winick, Jonathan Wurtele, Bill Fawley, Andy Sessler, Ilan
Ben–Zvi, Kwan Je Kim, Ming Xie, Avi Gover, Glenn Westenskow and David
Whittum. I have gained much from the LCLS group, and I thank them. Working
with our Russian collaborators at the Kurchatov institute under Alexander
Varfolomeev has been a pleasure.
I would like to categorically thank the support staff of the UCLA Department
of Physics. The machine shop provided exemplary service; thank you Al Casillas,
Harry Lockart and Frank Chase. Our building manager Tim Smart did us more
favors than I can keep track of with a 32 bit operating system. A number of
secretaries and assistants helped throughout my graduate career. A thank you to
Penny Lucky for keeping the department a better place for graduate students.
Jim Kolonko deserves special credit for keeping the ship from sinking. And, to
xxiii
the few janitors who actually did their job, thanks.
The US Department of Energy and the UCLA Department of Physics are
thanked and acknowledged for providing financial support for the laboratory
and for my livelihood.
My love and gratitude to my family. Judith Hoye, my beloved girlfriend,
read this document numerous times, put up with my long hours in the lab, and
kept me going.
Finally, a virtual sort of thanks to all the S’pht and Pfhor who gave their
lives for hours of destructive joy, and to the makers of B5 for the escape.
xxiv
VITA
September 30, 1967 Born in Los Angeles, CA.
August, 1988 US Particle Accelerator School - Cornell.
December, 1987 -
April, 1990 Undergraduate Student Research Assistant -
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
December, 1989
September, 1990 - B.A. in Physics at UC Berkeley.
1990 - 1991 Camp Fellowship - UCLA.
September, 1991 M.S. in Physics at UCLA.
1991 - 1992 US Department of Education Fellowship -

UCLA.
November, 1992 Visiting Scientist - MIT.
1992 - 1993 Graduate Student Research Fellowship - UCLA.
February, 1993 Visiting Scientist - LANL.
1993 Sigma Xi Grant.
January, 1994 US Particle Accelerator School - UCLA.
August, 1994 International Particle Accelerator School - Maui,

Hawaii.
July, 1995 Enrico Fermi International School of Physics -

Varenna, Italy.
1992 - Present Member SLAC X-ray FEL Design Group.
Presently Research Assistant, Particle Beam Physics

Laboratory - UCLA.
xxv
PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
S.C. Hartman, et al., “Initial measurements of the UCLA RF photoinjector,”
High Intensity Electron Sources (Legnaro, Italy: 1993).
S.C. Hartman, et al., “Emittance measurements of the 4.5 MeV UCLA RF
photoinjector,” Proceedings of the 1993 Particle Accelerator Conference
(Washington, DC, USA: 1993).
M. Hogan, et al., “Status of the UCLA High-Gain Infrared Free Electron
Laser,” To be published in the 1995 Particle Accelerator Conference (Dallas, TX,
USA: 1995).
S. Park, et al. , “Status of RF photoinjector and PWT linac at UCLA,” 1992
Linear Accelerator Conference Proceedings (Ottawa, Ont., Canada: 1992).
S. Park, et al., “Photoelectron beams from the UCLA RF gun,” Third
Advanced Accelerator Concepts Workshop (Port Jefferson, NY, USA: 1992).
C. Pellegrini, et al., “The SLAC soft X-ray high power FEL,” Fifteenth
International Free Electron Laser Conference (The Hague, Netherlands: 1993).
C. Pellegrini, et al., “Initial operation and beam characteristics of the UCLA
S-band RF photo-injector,” Proceedings of the 1993 Particle Accelerator Conference
xxvi
J. Rosenzweig, et al., “Initial measurements of the UCLA RF photoinjector,”
Fifteenth International Free Electron Laser Conference (The Hague, Netherlands:
1993).
J. Rosenzweig, G. Travish and A. Tremaine, “Coherent Transition Radiation
Diagnosis of Microbunching at the Exit of a Free-Electron Laser Undulator,”
Submitted to Nuclear Instruments and Methods A (1995).
A.M. Sessler, Gil A. Travish, and Simon S. Yu, “Multibunch Operation of
the 1GeV Machine,” Lawrence Livermore National Lab Beam Research Program
Research Memo 88-19 (Livermore, CA: March 1988).
G. Travish, et al., “Parametric study of an X-ray FEL,” Nuclear Instruments
and Methods A 358 60-63 (1995).
G. Travish, “Performance simulation and parameter optimization for high
gain short wavelength FEL amplifiers,” Invited Talk at the Sixteenth International
Free Electron Laser Conference (FEL94) (Stanford, CA, USA: 1994). And published
in Nuclear Instruments and Methods A 358 48-51 (1995).
G. Travish and J. Rosenzweig, “Strong sextupole focusing in planar
undulators,” Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research, Section A
345(3): 585-93 (1994).
G. Travish, et al., “Slippage, Noise and Superradiant Effects in the UCLA
FEL Experiment,” Presented at the Fifteenth International Free Electron Laser
xxvii
Conference (FEL93) and published in the conference proceedings (The Hague,
Netherlands: 1993).
G. Travish and J. Rosenzweig, “Numerical studies of strong focusing in
planar undulators,” Proceedings of the 1993 Particle Accelerator Conference
G. Travish, et al., “Performance characteristics, optimization, and error
tolerances of a 4 nm FEL based on the SLAC linac,” Proceedings of the 1993
Particle Accelerator Conference (Washington, DC, USA: 1993).
G.A. Travish, “The Beam Break-Up Numerical Simulator,” LBL - 28029
(Berkeley, CA: 1989).
G. Travish, et al., “The UCLA IR FEL Project,” Presented at the Fourteenth
International Free Electron Laser Conference (FEL92) and published in the
conference proceedings (Kobe, Japan: 1992).
G. Travish and J. Rosenzweig, “Strong Focusing for Planar Undulators,”
presented at the Third Advanced Accelerator Concepts Workshop and published
in the proceedings (Port Jefferson, NY: 1992).
G.A. Travish, “Transverse Beam Break-Up in Linear Accelerators,”
Undergraduate Honors Thesis (1989).
D.H. Whittum and G.A. Travish, “Beam Break-Up in a KEK TBA,” Collider
xxviii
Physics Note (Berkeley, CA: 1989).
D.H. Whittum, G.A. Travish, A.M. Sessler, G.D. Craig and J.F. DeFord,
“Beam Break-Up in the Two Beam Accelerator,” 1989 IEEE Particle Accelerator
Conference Proceedings (Chicago, IL: 1989).
H. Winick, et al., “Short wavelength FELs using the SLAC linac,” Eighth
National Conference on Synchrotron Radiation Instrumentation (Gaithersburg,
MD, USA: 1993).
H. Winick, et al., “A 2-4 nm Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) using the
SLAC linac,” Proceedings of the 1993 Particle Accelerator Conference (Washington,
DC, USA: 1993).
xxix
ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION
Experimental Requirements for a Self Amplified Spontaneous Emission Test
System: Design, Construction, Simulation and Analysis of the UCLA High Gain
Free Electron Laser
by
Gil A. Travish
Doctor of Philosophy in Physics
University of California, Los Angeles, 1995
Professor James Rosenzweig, Chair
This thesis presents the UCLA high gain free electron laser (FEL). FELs
have long been proposed as sources of radiation in regimes difficult to obtain
with conventional lasers. High average power, microwave, far-IR, UV and X-ray
are regimes and characteristics difficult for conventional lasers to achieve. Free
Electron Lasers, in principle, do not suffer from the same limitations (atomic
transitions, heat dissipation, thermal lensing, etc.) as atomic and molecular lasers.
However, oscillator FELs are still impeded by the need for suitable optics. A high
gain FEL, on the other hand, requires no oscillator, and can operate in regimes
where high quality optics are unavailable. A high gain FEL which requires no
input signal, and amplifies the spontaneous emission produced by its own beam
is said to be operating in the Self Amplified Spontaneous Emission (SASE) mode.
A SASE FEL can operate at wavelengths where no conventional coherent sources
are available (i.e., x–rays).
xxx
High gain FEL experimental work has been very limited, with only a few
experiments performed at “optical” wavelengths. No SASE FEL has been operated
outside the microwave regime. This work describes an experiment designed to
verify the models of high gain FELs, and operate an infrared SASE FEL.
High gain FEL theory is reviewed. An analysis of the PBPL FEL is made
using analytic as well as numerical models. Experimental effects such as the
limited accuracy of beam diagnostics are taken into account. It is shown that
there are great experimental problems to overcome in attempting to determine
the performance and effective start-up level of the PBPL FEL. Some of these
difficulties are expected to be shared by future high gain FELs.
The PBPL experiment is described with an emphasis on operational
problems significant to the FEL. The accelerator, beamline components and
diagnostics are described in detail along with design issues and performance
parameters. The FEL undulator and optical diagnostics are also described and
test data is given.
This thesis shows the complexities associated with a high gain FEL, and
attempts to determine what can be learned from such an experiment.
xxxi
PART
I
1
Chapter 1
Introduction and History
A brief history of free electron lasers is presented, and the UCLA system is
described. The organization of this dissertation is also discussed.
Chapter Contents
1.1: Development of the FEL ...................................................................3
1.2: Motivation for this Experiment......................................................12
1.3: Overview of the UCLA IRFEL .......................................................16
1.4: Organization .....................................................................................23
2
1.1: DEVELOPMENT OF THE FEL
The Free Electron Laser (FEL) was invented by John Madey in 1970 [1].
However, the story of the FEL begins much earlier. The definitive history of Free
Electron Lasers has yet to be written, but a number of documents have described
portions of the fascinating events surrounding these devices [2-7]. Here we merely
highlight the major milestones in order to give the reader an appreciation of the
many facets of FELs, the myriad of applications, and the challenges faced by
workers in the field. At the risk of offending all those not included here, but who
should have been, we proceed.
Radiation productions has its own long history, but radiation production
from charged–particle beams can be traced back to Sir William Crookes and his
tubes [8], and Wilhelm Konrad Röntgen’s observations on x–rays [9]. Modern
beam–radiation began with the observation of synchrotron radiation in the Forties
(1947), first on the General Electric 70 MeV synchrotron [10]. J. Blewett is recognized
as one of the first to account for radiation effects on electron orbits. The possibilities
of using “bend magnet” radiation were soon realized, with the first–generation
light sources coming on line in the late sixties and early seventies. A number of
facilities offered parasitic operation on their accelerator. In 1968 the Tantalus ring
at the University of Wisconsin was the first to offer a synchrotron radiation
research program [11].
3
During the early days of synchrotron “light” production, a number of
workers explored ways to enhance the amount of radiation produced. In the
early Fifties H. Motz proposed and experimented with magnet configurations
similar to present day wigglers (see Figure 1.1) [5]. Indeed, Motz is often credited
with inventing the precursor to the FEL [7]. Rather than dwell on the controversial
topic of “who did what first,” we continue on to another milestone.
Figure 1.1: A simple wiggler or undulator. Pairs of magnets with alternating

orientations are arranged in a periodic structure.
During the Sixties, D. Phillips developed a device termed the Ubitron.
Phillips was interested in producing microwaves. His Ubitron was remarkably
similar to an FEL (or, more accurately, an FEM — Free Electron Maser).
Unfortunately, the Ubitron was not an economical means of producing microwaves
compared to the already available traveling wave tubes, and, so, the Ubitron
research was not pursued. The extension of the Ubitron to the FEL did not seem
to be fully recognized by Phillips.
A surprising paper by K. Robinson — an accelerator physicist with the
Cambridge Electron Accelerator at Harvard University — was published
posthumously, and reveals that he had formulated a classical theory of the FEL
and the optical klystron as early as 1960 [12].
In 1970 Madey, having experience with “insertion devices” (undulators
and wigglers) for light sources, realized that a laser–like amplifier or oscillator
4
could be constructed by combining a high–quality electron–beam, a wiggler and
an input source or oscillator cavity mirrors. While the experimental aspects of the
first FEL may seem like a straightforward extension of the then available technology,
the theoretical framework produced by Madey was a quantum mechanical tour
de force.
10 4
INFN LELA '85

Beam Energy [ γ]
10 3
Orsay ACO '85
BNL
Novosibirsk '84
Rocketdyne/Stanford
Orsay ACO '85
Boeing/Spectra '87
10 2
LLNL ELF Tapered '86

UK
LLNL ELF '87
LLNL ELF '86

TRW/Stanford '84
LLNL ELF '85

Frascati ENEA '85
Stanford Mark III '8
Stanford '80
Stanford '77
TRW/EG&G '83
Stanford '76
LANL '82
LANL '86
LANL '84
MSNW/Boeing '83
Bell Labs
10 1
10 0 -2 UCSB '85
10 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4
Wavelength [µm]
Figure 1.2: Various past FELs are plotted comparing the wavelength to the total
gain (both oscillators and amplifiers are shown).
Soon after experimental plans were being conceived, it was realized that
the experimental challenges posed by the FEL were considerable. The FEL was
first operated in 1976 at Stanford, California by Madey and coworkers [13]. The
first FEL was configured as an amplifier with a CO2 laser used as an input
5
source. Since 1976 numerous FELs have operated (see Figure 1.2) in a variety of
configurations: spanning from radiowaves to the UV; some driven by linacs,
others by storage rings; some operated as oscillators, others as amplifiers.
Soon after the first FEL operated, theoretical work blossomed. W. Colson,
et al. first showed that a quantum mechanical description was not necessary, and
that a classical description was possible [14-16]. The seminal classical treatment
of FELs came in 1981 by N. Kroll, P. Morton and M. Rosenbluth (KMR) [17]. The
KMR paper built on earlier work, and presented a comprehensive FEL theory.
After this work, a number of workers extended the theoretical understanding of
FELs. During this era of theoretical work it was shown that, under the correct
conditions, an instability could be created in the FEL, which would produce
exponentially growing radiation [18-22]. Configured as an amplifier, such an FEL
could magnify input radiation by factors of 106 - 109 in energy. The instability
was called (phase) bunching, and the FEL was said to be in the high–gain regime.
Soon thereafter, workers showed that an input source was not necessary; the FEL
could amplify a portion of the beam’s spontaneous emission. This new mode of
operation was termed Self Amplified Spontaneous Emission (SASE) [23].
SASE opened up new possibilities for the FEL. With a SASE FEL, an input
source was not needed, permitting operation in wavelength bands where
conventional sources were not available [24]. In addition, operating in the high–gain
regime implied that oscillator cavity mirrors were not required, again freeing the
FEL to operate in bands where good mirrors were unavailable or in power ranges
that would damage available mirrors. The FEL’s ability to operate at high peak
6
powers and high average powers eventually attracted the attention of the US
defense community (and, if one believes the headlines of the time, the Russians
were building there own “death ray” [25]).
The defense funding (later under the Strategic Defence Initiative — SDI)
greatly impacted FEL research. Large sums of money were provided to national
laboratories and corporations (at least those willing to promise great results).
Shooting a missile out of the sky with a beam of light appeared to be nearing
reality [26]. The fact that the highest average power FEL operated was < 1 Watt
(and to date ~11 W is the acknowledged record), seemed to escape the funding
agencies who were seeking megawatts.
A number of FEL projects existed during the Eighties; a few come to mind:
ELF at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) and Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) [27, 28], Madey’s Mark III FEL at Stanford [29-31], etc.. However,
two main projects dominated the FEL community. By design, a competition was
set up between Los Alamos and Livermore. Los Alamos teamed up with Boeing
Corporation and Livermore was joined by TRW. The details of this competition,
and the surrounding history is covered in the interesting and entertaining (but
biased) book by Roger “Dodge” Warren [32].
The SDI challenge of producing a “death ray” was not as much an FEL
competition, as a beam production competition. Livermore chose to produce
long pulses of very high current beams using induction accelerators. Los Alamos
developed the RF photocathode gun to produce short, moderate current, but low
emittance beams. Both laboratories had teams of fine physicists and engineers
gathered. People like D. Prosnitz, A. Sessler, E. Scharlemann and G. Westenskow
7
gathered at Livermore. Los Alamos had C. Brau, D. Feldman, Warren and B.
Newnam among others.
For various reasons (some technical, most political) the Los Alamos/Boeing
team won, but not before Livermore completed the Advanced Test Accelerator
(ATA), and the Paladin undulator [33-35]. The ATA was an approximately 50
MeV accelerator capable of producing 3-10 kA beams ~10 nsec long. Paladin is a
25 m electromagnet undulator — it is still the longest undulator produced. The
ATA/Paladin high–gain FEL produced greater than 40 GW peak power in the
microwave range (8.3 mm), and saturated in the IR (10.6 µm) with a CO2 laser
input source [36, 37].
Los Alamos also had numerous successes. The Average Power EXperiment
(APEX) facility produced a very high beam quality at around 35 MeV [38-40].
APEX operated in a number of configurations, usually with short undulators,
and often as an oscillator. The final run at APEX (1993) produced UV light — an
incredible feat at the low beam energy of less than 40 MeV [41, 42]. Meanwhile
Boeing, Los Alamos’ partner, was producing the Average Power Laser Experiment
(APLE) [43-45]. They developed an RF gun with a 25% duty cycle and a 10 m
permanent magnet undulator, Nisus [46], along with the largest ring cavity ever
developed [47]. Results from Boeing are sparse in the literature.
No missiles were shot down by FELs, at least none that were reported in
the media.
Well, the history through the Eighties is rich with politics, accomplishments
and personalities. The treatment in this work can’t possibly do the subject justice.
8
But, a history, regardless how brief or selective, serves as a good introduction.
The SDI work that had dominated the FEL community in the Eighties has all but
disappeared, and sadly so has the funding for FELs in the US. FEL research has
taken on a new format in the post–SDI years, most of it occurring outside the US.
In the next section, we examine some of the more recent achievements and trends.
1.1.1: Present Generation Developments and Trends
With SDI funding evaporating in the early Nineties, and no other funding
agencies taking the lead, a vacuum was created. US FEL research became small
scale, often “underground” — not officially sanctioned. A few universities and
laboratories began FEL work “on the side”; a particular example of this trend is
the Accelerator Test Facility (ATF) at Brookhaven [48]. The ATF, developed by C.
Pellegrini and B. Palmer, was intended as a research laboratory for advanced
accelerator concepts, and had a number of FEL experiments planned. R. Sheffield
and coworkers developed the Advanced Free Electron Laser (AFEL) [49, 50] at
Los Alamos using the locally developed RF photocathode gun [51]. Boeing
continued on and off to do FEL work under J. Adamski. Columbia performed
some Raman regime work (low energy, high current beams) under T. Marshall
[52]. G. Bekefi and J. Wurtele of MIT worked on a number of microwave FEL
devices [53-55]. Stanford continued the FEL tradition with A. Schwettman and T.
Smith [56] and another group under R. Pantell [57-59]. UCLA began to build a
high brightness facility with a high–gain FEL experiment planned [60-64] — the
subject of the remainder of this work.
9
The most promising news came from user facilities in the US and abroad.
UC Santa Barbara constructed a Pelletron powered continuous beam far Infra–Red
(IR) FEL [65-67]. Vanderbilt, directed by Brau , produced an IR FEL using a
thermionic gun [68-70]. Stanford concentrated on providing very short pulses of
IR to users [56, 71]. Duke began construction of a storage ring FEL under Madey’s
direction [72, 73]. And, in the Netherlands the Free Electron Laser for Infrared
eXperiments (FELIX) was built to serve a host of users [74-76]. Ironically, the
Vanderbilt and Duke facilities were funded by a medical FEL program which
was an offshoot of the Strategic Defense Initiative Office (SDIO).
In addition to the FELIX, a number of other European experiments came
along: a variety of FELs, especially storage ring FELs at Orsay in France [77-80],
the TEU-FEL project of the University of Twente [81-83], the Tel Aviv University
Tandem Van de Graff FEL [84, 85], etc.. Theoretical work had also kept up with
major contributions from Bonifacio’s group at the University of Milan [86, 87].
Virtually no FEL R&D project is being funded by US agencies directly.
FEL support is either for user facilities or internal funds such as a laboratory
director’s discretionary funds. Nevertheless, developments of relevance to FELs
continued in the US throughout the early Nineties.
The Radio Frequency (RF) photocathode gun, developed notably at LANL
and BNL, has brought high current, high brightness beams to unprecedented
levels, and within the reach of modest sized and funded laboratories [88-90]. The
beams produced by such guns are well suited to FEL work — possessing high
current, low energy spread, and low emittance [91-93].
10
Undulator design and fabrication has also progressed through the efforts
of many institutions, light sources, and individuals such as Dodge Warren and
Cliff Fortgang of LANL [94]. With the realization that, at least for tests, FEL
undulators do not have to posses the same properties as light source insertion
devices, came the creation of low cost, easy to produce undulators.
The combination of compact, high quality accelerators and low cost
undulators has enabled small laboratories such as UCLA to develop FEL
experiments.
The above developments have also impacted the course of large scale FEL
proposals (there are no large scale FEL project in the US as of this writing). In
1992, Claudio Pellegrini rekindled interest in FELs by proposing an x–ray SASE
FEL based on the above developments and utilizing the high energy electron
beam available at the Stanford Linear Accelerator [95]. The Linac Coherent Light
Source (LCLS), as the project is now being called, has inspired other similar
projects at DESY in Hamburg, the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National
Laboratory, and CEBAF in Newport News, Virginia (see Section 1.2.1).
With new projects drawing the attention of users (mainly from traditional
light sources) looking for brighter sources, and accelerator physicists looking for
efficient microwave sources, funding and hence new physics may be forthcoming
in the US. The situation for FEL research is already bright in Europe and Japan.
Still, many concepts remain untested, and actual basic R&D remains minimal.
With the above brief history in mind, we now introduce the UCLA IR FEL
project.
11
1.2: MOTIVATION FOR THIS EXPERIMENT
The prime motivation for the UCLA Particle Beam Physics Laboratory
(PBPL) FEL was based on the history of FELs. It was desired to construct a
facility which built on recent innovations in accelerator physics, but avoided the
political and bureaucratic problems associated with past, large FEL projects.
Claudio Pellegrini began the Particle Beam Physics Laboratory (originally
called the Saturnus project) in early 1990 [96]. He insisted on creating a laboratory
constructed within the physics building in order to draw students to the field. A
collaboration was formed with the Electrical Engineering department to further
the ties between the departments. Indeed PBPL served to educate a number of
students including a long list of undergraduates. In fact, the laboratory was
constructed and is operated mainly by students. The original goal of PBPL was to
produce and study high peak current, low emittance beams. The intent was to
use such beams to study beam–plasma and beam–radiation interactions. The
means sought to produce a high quality beam was an RF photocathode gun and
numerous locally produced diagnostics.
An RF photocathode gun, utilizing the Brookhaven design, was fabricated
at the physics machine shop and brazed at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
(SLAC). The gun was installed on a short test beamline, powered by a locally
assembled RF system (driven by a SLAC XK–5 klystron), and a locally built drive
laser. The gun produced photoelectrons by early 1992.
Beginning in early 1993 the laboratory was shut down, radiation shielding
was installed, and a complete rebuild commenced by the end of the same year.
12
The “new” laboratory boasted a complete beamline with an accelerating section
(a Plane Wave Transformer — PWT — linac), and a host of diagnostics. Beam
was produced by the gun and accelerated by the linac towards the end of 1994.
Severe problems were encountered with the gun at the end of 1994 —
shortly after successful operation of the linac — and continue as of this writing.
The root of these problems is now believed to be surface contamination, possibly
from multiple sources, and remedies are being sought. Nevertheless, the gun
problems exhausted nearly two years of effort and have derailed desires to use
the beam for FEL work and other experiments.
Experimental realities have prevented the FEL from operating — or even
considering being operated — thus far. Regardless, the FEL experiment is planned
to occur in the near future.
Having covered the chronology of PBPL we can turn to the specific goals
and motivations for the FEL experiment. The FEL experiments planned at PBPL
are all in the high–gain SASE regime. The goal is to provide data and address
issues of relevance to future short wavelength devices. As was discussed in the
history section, the high–gain regime is of interest at short wavelengths, where
high quality (high reflectivity) mirrors are lacking and high optical power may
damage (reasonably sized) cavity mirrors. Again, the SASE mode is necessary for
short wavelength operation since conventional sources are not commonly available
at the wavelength of interest ( < 100 nm).
The real issue that PBPL seeks to address is what is the start-up process in
the FEL. The start-up regime can only be partially explored at PBPL, but even
13
simple operation of SASE FEL would be a “first” for the field. Moderate gain IR
SASE FEL results have been reported, but the analysis of these experiments is
inconclusive.
1.2.1: Short Wavelength Work
The promise of producing bright, coherent, short wavelength XUV and
x–ray radiation has yet to be fulfilled [97]. Free electron lasers have long been
touted as the right tool for this task [98-102]. Yet, in the nearly twenty years since
the first operation of the FEL, the short wavelength challenge has not been met
because of the limitations on beam brightness. Now it seems possible to produce
copious amounts of short wavelength radiation using technology developed in
the last few years.
A 0.4-1 Å FEL operating in the SASE mode, and using the SLAC linac as a
driver has been extensively studied (see Table 1.1) [103-110]. Using a 7-15 GeV
beam with a normalized Root Mean Square (RMS) emittance of 1-3 mm-mrad
and a peak current of 2500-5000 A, obtained by longitudinal bunch compression,
it is calculated that the LCLS FEL can provide about 20-50 GW of peak power, in
a sub–picosecond pulse. The FEL saturation length is greater than 20 m. Strong
focusing in both planes is provided throughout the undulator by a FODO
quadrupole system [111]. The LCLS group has studied the system gain, its
optimization and FEL tolerance to beam parameter changes, wiggler errors and
misalignments [110].
14
Table 1.1: One set of design parameters for the Linac Coherent Light Source.
Electron Beam Parameters @ 1 Å
Parameter Value
Energy 15 GeV
Energy Spread (uncorr.) <0.04%
Current (peak) 5000 Amps
Pulse Length (rms) < 250 fsec
Norm. Emittance (rms) 1 mm mrad
Undulator Parameters
Parameter Value
Total length 20 - 30 m
Undulator period 2 - 3 cm
Peak field on axis ~8 kG
Pole face gap (fixed) ~5 mm
Undulator parameter (K) ~2 - 4
FEL parameter (ρ) ~1 x 10-3
FEL Parameters [Simulations @1 Å]
Parameter Value
Radiation wavelength >1Å
Power gain length ~3-5m
SASE peak power ~50 GW
The primary distinguishing feature of this device is the electron beam. A
high current, low emittance (high brightness) beam produced by an RF
15
photocathode gun is accelerated to high energy (multi–GeV) using a portion of
the SLAC linac. This beam is what distinguishes this design from other potential
x–ray FEL schemes, which have relied on ultra–short undulator periods and
require even smaller normalized emittances.
The numerous simulations performed for the proposed SLAC based x–ray
FEL have shown that the parameters chosen are stable to fluctuations in beam
parameters achievable with present state of the art accelerator, mechanical and
magnetic technology. Further theoretical work needs to be performed to extend
the 1D theory of the start up and saturation regimes. Simulations of these regimes
will require codes which include pulse length (time) effects.
1.3: OVERVIEW OF THE UCLA IR FEL
The Free Electron Laser has shown potential as a light source in the infrared,
UV and, as recent proposals indicate, in the XUV and x–ray regime. While oscillator
experiments have provided a number of verifications and enhancements to theory
and operational experience, few high–gain amplifier systems have operated in
the optical regime. This section describes the PBPL IR FEL — a system designed
to study critical issues in high–gain systems and to improve the operational FEL
and accelerator experience with the requisite high–brightness beams. This section
is heavily based on a paper by M. Hogan, C. Pellegrini, J. Rosenzweig and G.
Travish [112].
16
The short–period undulator, combined with our moderate–energy beam
produces radiation in the infrared, where a large number of diagnostics are
available, without the added complexity of producing a higher–energy beam
necessary for operation at shorter wavelengths. Further, work in the IR should
not suffer from the beam noise problems associated with past microwave FELs. It
should be noted that there is a general lack of interest in near IR and optical FELs
because of the availability of conventional lasers.
a. The Beamline
The beam is produced in a BNL–style, 2856 MHz RF copper photocathode
gun driven by a frequency–quadrupled, pulse–compressed picosecond Nd:YAG
laser system [113]. Solenoids control the highly divergent beam and provide for
emittance compensation along with the RF focusing in the linac. The Plane Wave
Transformer (PWT) linac accelerates the electrons from an injection energy of
roughly 4 MeV to a maximum final energy of up to 17 MeV (see Table 1.2 for
other beam parameters).
Table 1.2: Electron beam parameters expected for the PBPL IRFEL.
Electron Beam Parameters [Expected]
Parameter Value
Energy 17 MeV
Energy Spread (uncorr.) 0.1%
Current (peak) 200 Amps
Pulse Length (rms) ~5 psec
Norm. Emittance (rms) 5 mm mrad
17
Quadrupoles are used to match the phase–space parameters emerging
from the photoinjector to those needed for injection into the undulator. The
mechanical center of the beamline is passively aligned to about 100 µm using
machined brackets, optical tables, and linear bearings (rails). The alignment
tolerance was chosen based on the performance simulations of the FEL. A second
dipole after the undulator bends the electron beam away from the optical pulse
to facilitate the IR optics/diagnostics.
b. Diagnostics
An unsaturated high–gain FEL is exponentially sensitive to certain
beam–parameter fluctuations. Thus, beam diagnostics on the PBPL system are
designed for single–bunch (shot–to–shot) operation. Beam position, size, charge
and emittance are measured using the a host of diagnostics, including:
♦ Stripline beam position monitors (BPMs) for nondestructive

measurements.
♦ Fluorescent screens for beam size and position measurements.
♦ Integrating Current Transformer (ICT) for charge measurements.
♦ Faraday cups for destructive charge measurements
♦ Slits (1D pepper pots) to measure the effective transverse

emittance of the space–charge dominated beam.
The first dipole magnet, in conjunction with the quadrupoles, is used as a
spectrometer to measure the energy and the energy spread. The second dipole
will also allow for a crude energy measurement after the beam exits the undulator.
18
c. Microbunching Monitor
Coherent transition radiation (CTR) can be used to measure the extent of
bunching in the FEL. A foil at the exit of the undulator can be used to study the
bunching. Calculations indicate that the expected 0.2% bunching factor should
produce CTR in the FEL band within an order of magnitude of the FEL output
itself.
d. The Undulator
The PBPL FEL, manufactured at the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow, uses
a planar undulator 60 cm long with a 1.5 cm period, 5 mm fixed gap spacing and
a greater than 7 kG peak field (see Table 1.3). The undulator was designed to
provide IR radiation from modest beam energies (< 20 MeV) while maintaining a
strong coupling (an undulator parameterau≈1). An RMS field uniformity of better
than 0.18%, measured using both a Hall probe and the pulsed wire technique,
should assure good FEL performance. Additionally, the second integral of the
undulator field satisfies the requirement that the RMS electron beam deflection
in the wiggle plane (~105 µm) be less than the RMS beam waist (~200 µm). It
should be noted that the construction of the FEL is not well suited to studying
the effects of varying undulator parameters such as field strength and error.
19
Table 1.3: Undulator parameters measured for the PBPL IRFEL.
Undulator Parameters [Measured]
Parameter Value
Total length 60 cm
Undulator period 1.5 cm
Peak field on axis 7.3 kG
Pole face gap (fixed) 5 mm
Undulator parameter (K) ~1
FEL parameter (ρ) ~1 x 10-2
e. Numerical Simulations
The lack of experimental work on SASE optical FELs necessitates reliance
on numerical simulations to predict the performance of our experiment. Earlier
work in the IR on the Paladin FEL at LLNL has helped test high–gain codes, but
has not provided information on start-up from noise. Fluctuations in FEL
performance, especially from start-up, as well as sensitivities to system parameters
are a critical issue in future short–wavelength high–gain systems where output
stability and saturation are significant to users. Simulations of the UCLA system
have been performed to investigate such sensitivities in hopes of performing
experimental comparisons. Most of the following work was performed with
TDA3D [114] and includes 3D effects, diffraction, emittance and energy spread
(see Table 1.4).
20
Table 1.4: FEL simulation results for the PBPL IRFEL. The peak power is given
after one gain length, as well as at the end of the undulator.
FEL Parameters [Simulations @10.6 µm]
Parameter Value
Radiation wavelength 10-20 µm
Power gain length 7.2 cm
3 mW @ 7.2cm
SASE peak power
~1 W @ 60cm
1. Current
The beam current is our easiest parameter to control and measure.
Spontaneous emission can be differentiated from amplified (stimulated) radiation
by observing the dependence on current: spontaneous emission is broadband
and scales linearly with the current, while amplified radiation power, P, scales as
P ~ I exp(αI 4/3 ) where α is a constant and I is the beam current (see 2.68 on Page
54). The challenge will lie in deconvolving a variation of beam current from
parameters such as beam size, pulse length, energy spread and emittance.
2. Beam Size
Beam–size changes, such as those caused by space charge, affect the beam
density as well as the matching into the undulator. The FEL is, in general, sensitive
to the overall (six dimensional) beam phase–space density; however, simulations
predict that the UCLA IR FEL performance is insensitive to achievable beam
matching. Regardless, matching is a technical issue that needs to be resolved
21
with experience in beam handling. Phosphor screens and BPMs should provide
sufficient operator feedback on beam size.
4. Energy Spread
Wakefields (primarily from the linac as well as longitudinal space charge)
are expected to produce a correlated energy spread ~ 1%. This spread can be
ameliorated by running the linac “off crest”. Any residual correlated energy
spread will give rise to a broader radiation bandwidth. Our IR detectors are
broadband and nearly linear over such linewidths, so that integrating over the
wavelengths is inherent in the instrumentation. The expected uncorrelated energy
spread (PARMELA [115] simulated and initially measured) of <0.5% does not
substantially degrade FEL performance.
5. Emittance
The only single–shot emittance measurements available to us are destructive
slits. Hence, we will not be able to measure emittance “on line” with the FEL
operating, but by knowing all the other beam parameters it may be possible to
calibrate the emittance. Simulations indicate that an emittance much poorer than
the design value can still yield measurable gain.
f. IR Detection
The low–level SASE signal (see Table 1.4), which can be calculated from
numerical integration or simple 1D theory, requires the use of cryogenic detectors
to obtain the necessary sensitivity. A non–imaging optic (Winston Cone) will
22
maximize collection efficiency during initial operation, but may degrade the
signal–to–noise ratio (SNR) by collecting large amounts of background.
Background (blackbody) radiation constitutes a DC offset/pedestal that may be
compensated for up to the level of the shot noise. Commercially available IR
detectors have relatively long time constants (~nsec) with respect to the pulse
(~psec), so that the integrated background noise may be significant. An available
copper–doped germanium detector should provide a SNR of ~103, neglecting
signal loss in the optics, pre–amplifier noise, and reduction in detectivity due to
operating far below the response time of the detector. By removing the Winston
Cone and aperturing the field of view of the detector to limit the collected
background, the SNR can be increased by several additional orders of magnitude.
Both the spontaneous emission and the amplified signal should be well within
our sensitivity, and studies of SASE FEL radiation production should be feasible.
1.4: ORGANIZATION
This thesis is divided into two parts each containing chapters. Part I, which
includes this chapter, covers the theoretical aspects of the PBPL FEL. Part II
covers the experimental details of the FEL.
Part I, Chapter 1 (this chapter) covers the history of high–gain FELs, the
reasons for the PBPL experiment, and an overview of the experiment. The next
chapter reviews high–gain FEL theory along with presentation of theoretical details
23
of a proposed bunching diagnostic. Chapter 3 presents the results of theoretical
and numerical studies of the PBPL FEL. Also presented in Chapter 3 is an analysis
of problems introduced by the performance limits of diagnostics and detectors.
Part II begins with Chapter 4 and a description of the experiment including
the accelerator, beamline, and related components. Chapter 5 goes on to detail
the beam diagnostics including basic operating principles and performance. Much
of the analysis of Chapter 3 relies on data from Chapters 5 and 6. Chapter 6
concludes the experimental description with an overview of the undulator and
the infrared diagnostics.
Chapter 7 presents a summary and some conclusions to the thesis. Each
chapter includes a brief summary section, while a cumulative list of references is
included in back of the thesis. Various Appendices are included at the end of this
thesis, and are referred to throughout the text.
In addition to the Table of Contents, List of Figures, and List of Tables
included at the beginning of this thesis, an Acronym Glossary, Reference Index,
and Word Index are included in the back.
A word about cross references and numbering may aid the reader. Sections
are numbered starting with the chapter number followed by section and sub
section numbers (i.e., 3.2.1). Equations are numbered sequentially starting with
the chapter number (i.e., 2.56). Significant equations and definitions are often
boxed for emphasis.
Finally, the notation used through out this thesis is given in Table 1.5.
24
Table 1.5: A list of notation used in this document.
Description Symbol or Notation

Normalized undulator field A, X, Y
Normalized optical field ar
Undulator normalized field au
Bunching parameter b
Electron velocity [c] β
Transverse electron velocity [c] β(
Undulator magnetic field magnitude B0
Normalized undulator field b0=(e/mc2)Bu
Focusing betafunction. β=2π/λβ
Undulator magnetic field Bu
Longitudinal electron velocity [c] β||
Speed of light c
Electron charge e
Beam Emittance (normalized, RMS) εn
Electron Beam Energy [mc 2] γ
Transverse Lorentz factor γ(
Resonant energy [mc 2] γr
Longitudinal Lorentz factor γ||
Beam current I or Ib
Beam current density J
Bessel function factor JJ
Radiation wavenumber kr
Radiation wavenumber kr=2π/λr
Undulator wavenumber ku
Undulator wavenumber ku=2π/λu
Radiation wavelength λ or λ r
Betatron wavelength λβ
25
Cooperation length Lc
Gain length Lg
Slippage length Ls
Undulator period λu
Undulator length Lu
Electron mass m
Electron density n or nb
Number of electrons Nb
Initial power Pr
Beam spot size (one standard deviation) σ, σb, σr
Slippage parameter S
Longitudinal undulator axis z
Rayleigh range ZR
Location or radiation waist` Zw
FEL Phase f
Waist location zw
26
Chapter 2
FEL Theory
A review of high–gain FEL theory is presented. A derivation of the basic KMR

equations is given. An emphasis on the high–gain regime is made. And, a review
of focusing in undulators and a theoretical study of a bunching diagnostic is also
included.
Chapter Contents
2.1: Overview of High–Gain Systems...................................................28
2.2: 1D Analysis .......................................................................................33
2.3: Start–up Analytic Models ...............................................................63
2.4: The 3D Analytic Model ...................................................................80
2.5: Bunching and Coherent Transition Radiation.............................81
2.6: Focusing in Planar Undulators ......................................................89
2.7: Chapter Summary............................................................................97
27
2.1: OVERVIEW OF HIGH–GAIN SYSTEMS
The free electron laser has a rich, if brief, history (see Section 1.1). Various
configurations and operating regimes have been developed: oscillators and
amplifiers have been studied theoretically and tested experimentally; low and
high–gain systems have been operated. Additionally, devices have been
constructed which begin from spontaneous noise, Self Amplified Spontaneous
Emission (SASE), as well as devices which begin from an external source. FELs
can operate in a regime where collective effects are significant (Raman) or negligible
(Compton). Many types of accelerators have been used to drive FELs, including
storage rings, RF linacs, electrostatic accelerators and superconducting linacs.
Various undulator configurations have been tried: helical, linear, electromagnetic,
permanent magnet, hybrid, and superconducting. In addition to the diverse modes
of operation, FELs can function over a large electron energy and parameter space
as shown in Figure 1.2.
Rather than considering all types of FELs, we limit ourselves here to one
type — the amplifier, or “single pass” configuration. A single pass FEL can be
represented by a few basic components: accelerator, electron beam optics, electron
beam diagnostics, undulator, optical beam, optical diagnostics, and electron beam
dump (see Figure 2.1).
28
Beam
Undulator Electron Dump
Beam
Electron optics
Accelerator
Optical
Beam IR Diagnostics
Figure 2.1: The basic components of a single–pass FEL.
For theoretical models, it is possible to consider the beam as coming from a
“black box,” and ignore the details of the accelerator, beam optics and diagnostics
(see Figure 2.2). For the purposes of this chapter, a beam is a collection of relativistic
particles (usually electrons), and an undulator is a device that produces a periodic
magnetic field. The operating definition we will begin with is that an FEL is a
device which produces coherent (or partially coherent) radiation from an electron
beam by extracting energy from the beam through a stimulated emission process.
Beam
IN Optics
Interaction Output
Radiation
IN
Figure 2.2: A simplified block diagram of a single–pass FEL. The “radiation in”
box represents either a coherent input source or the effective start-up power from
spontaneous emission.
In modeling an FEL, the input beam can be represented by a number of
parameters. A “6N–dimensional” phase space can describe the overall particle
distribution (Ne). However, most realistic beams have far too many particles (Ne>
108) to include in analytic or even numerical models. The full phase space can be
29
reduced to a distribution in six–dimensional space ƒ( x, y, z,px , py , pz ) which
describes the beam. Typically, envelope or weighted average distribution values
are used in FEL models; the beam is represented by “macroscopic” parameters:
transverse emittances εx and εy , beam current I, longitudinal energy γ, and FEL
phase φ, discussed later in this chapter.
In addition to simplifying the electron beam description, it is possible to
distill the optical beam model to a few parameters. Typically, optical parameters
are chosen for either computational convenience or to agree with standard
laboratory–parameters. The conversion is from the electromagnetic fields to the
optical–mode parameters. One useful set of parameters is the Rayleigh range ZR,
waist size σr, waist location z w, and power Pr. To allow for non–symmetric optical
beams, a modal decomposition is usually performed, so the mode number, m r,
can be added to the list of optical parameters. Figure 2.3 graphically represents
the descriptive optical parameters.
σr
zw
ZR + zw
mr
Figure 2.3: A sketch of the optical beam and some descriptive parameters.
The next component of the FEL, the undulator, can also be described
using a small number of parameters rather than the detailed magnetic field. An
undulator is usually described by the period λ u, magnetic field strength Bu, total
30
length Lu and gap height g. For most theoretical studies the gap height is unnecessary
and the field strength is represented using the dimensionless undulator parameter,
e λu Bu
au = , (2.1)
mc2 2π
where B u is the undulator magnetic field, λu is the period and the remaining
notation is given in Table 1.5. The undulator parameters discussed above are
diagrammed in Figure 2.4. While neglecting the details of the undulator field is
generally acceptable, it is often necessary to include undulator errors and external
focusing in a model [110].
Bu ⇒ au
g
λu
Lu
Figure 2.4: Undulator parameters represented in pictorial form. The arrows along
the undulator represent the magnetic field directions.
Undulator errors are typically included by using an RMS field error value
as a figure of merit; limitations of this approach are discussed in Section 3.3.6. It
is pointed out there that field errors are best treated numerically; we shall ignore
undulator field errors in this section.
External focusing for undulators can take many forms (see Appendix 8.4
for a brief discussion). In general, we can describe external focusing by using a
smooth approximation to the focusing lattice. Then, using the focusing lattice period
31
and the focusing strength an equivalent focusing betafunction can be calculated
(see Appendix 8.4.3). The betafunction is defined as
1
βf ≡ (2.2)
λβ
where λ β is the wavelength of the particle oscillations in the focusing channel. In
the case of natural focusing (see Section 2.6.2), the betafunction is given by
1 e γλ u
βn = 2 Bu = . (2.3)
2γ mc 2πau
Another example is provided by a quadrupole (FODO) lattice where the focusing
betafunction is given by
2π
βq = L (2.4)
µ
where L is the periodicity of the FODO lattice, and µ is the phase advance per cell
(quadrupole).
Having reduced the number of parameters used to describe the FEL (see
Table 2.1), we turn to understanding the relation between these parameters.
This chapter draws heavily on the published works of J. Murphy and C.
Pellegrini [116]. Supplemental material is derived from a review paper by R.
Bonifacio, F. Casagrande, G. Cerchioni, L. De Salvo Souza, P. Pierini and N.
Piovella [86]. Conceptual explanations were drawn from C. Brau [3]. Finally, the
focus section is based on E. T. Scharlemann’s original work [117].
32
Table 2.1: A summary of the parameters used to describe an FEL in a simple
model.
Electron Beam
Beam emittance (normalized, rms) εn
Electron beam energy [mc2] γ
Beam current I
Beam spot size (one standard deviation) σ
Radiation
Radiation wavelength λ or λ r
Rayleigh range ΖR
Waist location zw
Initial power Pr
Undulator
Undulator normalized field au
Undulator period λu
Undulator length Lu
Focusing betafunction β
2.2: 1D ANALYSIS
There have been many models of the Free Electron Laser, the first of
which was a quantum mechanical description. Later, workers realized that classical
electrodynamics could sufficiently model most FELs. A seminal work on the
33
subject led to a set of basic FEL equations known as the KMR equations [17].
Here we will give an elementary and brief derivation of the FEL equations in one
(longitudinal) dimension (no transverse extent is taken into account). Many
assumptions and simplifications will be made. Some of these assumptions will be
detailed in the derivation, further details are left to Section 2.3.2.
2.2.1: Physical Model of an FEL
Before detailing the interaction in an FEL, it is useful to have a simple
physical picture in mind. One of the clearest descriptions comes from Sessler,
where he describes the interaction of a single particle (an electron) with an optical
field and an undulator field [118]. Refer to Figure 2.5 for the following: In frame
(1) the electron (currently off axis) feels no force from the optical field since the
electric field is zero; the force is only from the undulator. At frame (2) the electron
has advanced 1/4 of an undulator period while the optical field has advanced
1/4 of a period relative to the electron. The electric field is now at a maximum;
the electron feels a retarding force and radiates. By frame (3) the electron has
advanced 1/2 undulator period while the optical field has advanced 1/2 of a
period relative to electron. The electric field is once again zero so the electron
feels no force, and looses no energy. At frame (4) the electric field has reached a
maximum. The electron feels a retarding force (opposite direction of frame (2)),
and again looses energy to the optical field. Finally, in frame (5) the configuration
is the same as frame (1), but the optical field has “slipped” one wavelength and
has gained energy equal to the energy lost by the electron. Slippage, the characteristic
34
of radiation passing over the electron beam, can significantly effect the FEL
interaction (see Section 3.4). Slippage provides a mechanism for beam electrons
to effect one another through the radiation [119].
1)
Optical Electric Field
Electron
Undulator
Magnetic Field
2)
Electron
Trajectory
Undulator Axis
3)
4)
5)
Figure 2.5: Five frames of single particle motion in an FEL.
It should be clear that the initial condition (phase) of the particle determines
whether the particle will gain energy, as in the above example, or lose energy.
35
Thus, for a distribution (in phase) of particles, some will gain energy while others
will lose energy. The single particle picture yields important information about
FEL dynamics, but it is important to keep in mind that real beams have finite
temperature: particles have a distribution in energy (and position).
The model presented above does not introduce the important concept of a
resonant energy. At the resonant energy, electrons exchange no energy with the
radiation field (i.e., there is a constant phase between the radiation field and
electron oscillations). In analogy to stimulated emission (absorption) in an atomic
laser, electrons with energy greater (less) than resonance will lose (gain) energy
to (from) the radiation field. The potential responsible for the energy loss and
gain is termed the ponderomotive potential. The ponderomotive potential will
tend to bunch the beam (analogous to RF phase stability, see Figure 2.6). High
gain (gain much larger than one) is then produced through an instability —
bunching — and phase bunching leads to coherent emission. Low gain (when
bunching is not required) can still be achieved by injecting the beam at an energy
above resonance. Because of the importance of the resonance condition, we revisit
it a number of times (see Pages 43 and 57).
Initial beam Ponderomotive Bunching Bunched beam
Figure 2.6: A cartoon of phase bunching occurring to a particle distribution in

ponderomotive potential.
We can summarize the one–particle model by stating that a charged particle
(electron), colinear with an optical (radiation) field, enters an undulator, begins
36
to radiate, thus transferring energy into the optical field while the optical field
slips ahead of the particle one wavelength per undulator period. The multi–particle
model introduced us to the concepts of energy spread, phase bunching and gain.
The idea of bunching is an important one, and deserves more explanation.
Radiation from a distribution of charges can display collective effects which
enhance the total number of photons radiated, as well as affecting the frequency
and angular spectrum. This coherence effect is due to the emitted radiation of
separated electrons being in phase with each other. Distributions which lead to
coherence are often referred to as bunched. The extent of the coherent enhancement
of a radiative process can be crudely estimated by the number of electrons located
within a longitudinal half–wavelength (λ r/2) and a transverse half–wavelength
divided by the Lorentz factor (γ).
With the physical model, and the concepts of a resonant energy and phase
bunching, in mind, we begin deriving the FEL equations.
2.2.2: The Basic KMR Equations
Various methods have been used to produce a set of self consistent equations
which describe the FEL action. Hamiltonian dynamics yield results with a nice
analogy to pendulum motion [120, 121]. Maxwell–Vlasov (relativistic collisionless
Boltzmann equations) techniques are good for describing collective effects (Raman
regime) [122, 123]. Single particle formalisms with particle averaging offer the
simplest formalism, and we will adopt this method.
37
To ensure a self consistent derivation we calculate the electron motion
using Lorentz equations and non–static fields. Then, we calculate the radiation
and undulator fields using Maxwell equations. We will make a number of
assumptions during the derivation (see Section 2.3.2 for more details):
♦ Ignore quantum effects (λr>>λCompton ~ 0.004 Å).
♦ Ignore diffraction of the radiation beam.
♦ Include 1D effects only: ignore transverse dimensions.
♦ Ignore the space–charge force between beam particles and assume

the particles interact only through the radiation (strict Compton
regime).
♦ Use smooth electric and magnetic fields.
♦ Assume highly relativistic electrons (γ>>1).
♦ Assume a steady state — time independent — solution is valid:

ignore slippage.
We begin with the Lorentz force and wave equations:
dp
= e (E + β × B) , (2.5)
dt
∂2A 1 ∂2A 4π
2 − 2 2 =− J (2.6)
∂z c ∂t c
where the Coulomb gauge is assumed, ∇⋅ A = 0 , where A is the vector potential,
p is the momentum, E is the electric field, B is the magnetic field, β=v/c is the
scaled velocity, and J is the vector current density. For simplicity, we only consider
the case of a planar undulator (the extension to a helical undulator is
straightforward). The geometry is detailed in Figure 2.7.
38
y - undulator field axis
z = vt ≈ ct
x - transverse
electron motion
Figure 2.7: The geometry used here for a planar undulator.
For an ideal planar undulator we can describe the fields quite simply:
Bu = Bu y cos(k uz + φu )yˆ (2.7)
where Buy is the y–component of the undulator field and φu is a relative phase
(the subscript u is for undulator terms). Notice that Equation 2.7 does not obey
the Maxwell equations. It can easily be shown, by using a more realistic field,
that the idealized undulator field we are using does not cause a fundamental
problem in the derivation. In addition to the undulator field, we will also require
the radiation fields for the derivation. For simplicity, we assume a plane wave for
the radiation:
E r = Erx (z,t)cos ( krz − ωr t +φ r )xˆ (2.8)
and
Br = Bry (z,t)cos( kr z − ω r t + φr )yˆ (2.9)
39
where the functional dependence on Erx and Bry will be implicitly assumed from
here on, and fr is a relative phase term (the subscript r is for radiation terms). We
can now insert the fields of Equations 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9 into the Lorentz force law
(Equation 2.5) to yield
dp x
dt
{
= e Erx cos ( kr z −ω r t + φr ) (2.10)
[ ]}
−β z Br y cos (k rz − ω rt + φr ) + Bu y cos(ku z +φ u )
and
dp z
dt {
= eβx Br y cos (k rz −ω rt + φr )
. (2.11)
}
+Bu y cos( ku z + φu )
We can solve for the transverse momentum by using the familiar relations
1 ∂Ax ∂A
Ex = − , and By = − x , (2.12)
c ∂t ∂z
to obtain
px = −
e
[A sin ( kr z− ωr t +φ r ) + Au x sin( ku z+ φ u )
c rx
] (2.13)
where, for a plane wave
ω
Erx = A , and Bu y = ku Au x . (2.14)
c rx
Note that the transverse momentum has a contribution from both the undulator
and radiation field.
We will not require the longitudinal momentum; however, pz may be
obtained from β z by using p z = γmcβ z . Further,
1 1 β x2
βz = 1 − − β ≅ − −
2
1 . (2.15)
γ2 x
2γ 2 2
40
In addition, the two momentum components (Equations 2.10 and 2.11) can be
related by using the time derivative of
p2
γ = 1+ (2.16)
m 2c 2
which comes from the four–vector energy relation E 2 = m2 c4 + p 2c2 = γ 2 m 2c4 . Now,
it is useful to define some variables. The radiation and undulator fields can be
normalized into dimensionless parameters:
e e
ar = A , and au = A . (2.17)
mc2 r x mc 2 ux
The definition for au matches the one given earlier in Equation 2.1. Next, in
analogy to the ponderomotive potential, we introduce a ponderomotive phase:
θ = (k r + ku ) z − ω rt + φ r +φ u . (2.18)
The ponderomotive phase defines a particle’s position relative to the undulator
field and the radiation field; it is the conjugate variable to the particle energy.
Finally, we find that
dγ ω aa
= − r r u sinθ (2.19)
dz 2c γ
where it was assumed that au>>a r (see Section 2.3.2, page 77) and the
ultra–relativistic approximation
d d d
= vz ≈c (2.20)
dt dz dz
was used. The assumption that the normalized undulator field is much larger
than the normalized radiation field is true for most FELs built to date (again, see
Section 2.3.2 for a brief discussion). The notable exception to the above assumption
41
is an Inverse Free Electron Laser (IFEL) [124, 125].
The energy relation (Equation 2.19) is equivalent to that of a pendulum.
We term the right hand side of Equation 2.19 the ponderomotive force which causes
the bunching (see Figure 2.8). The force is considered ponderomotive because it
is second order in the field (radiation and undulator) quantities, and because the
force is parallel to the field energy density gradient [126, 127].
Figure 2.8: Bunching of an initially uniform distribution by a ponderomotive

potential.
We now turn to the phase equation. By differentiating the definition of the
ponderomotive phase (Equation 2.18) we can see how the phase evolves:
dθ  1  dφ
= k u + kr  1−  + r . (2.21)
dz  βz  dz
There are a few ways to simplify Equation 2.21 further. We choose to use the
energy–momentum relation and solution for px (Equation 2.13) to obtain
1 + (au sin( ku z + φu ))
2
βz = 1 − . (2.22)
γ2
Expanding the above relation to first order in 1/β z yields
dθ
dz
k
( dφ
= k u − r 2 1+ ( au sin( ku z + φu )) + r .
2γ
2
dz ) (2.23)
Finally, averaging over one undulator period produces the result
42
dθ k  a  dφ
= k u − r 2 1 + u  + r . (2.24)
dz 2γ  2  dz
Note that if we neglect the radiation phase term dφr/dz, then the FEL resonance
condition (Equation 2.24) results when dθ dz = 0 (no phase advance). The resonance
condition can then be understood as the condition under which an electron is
in–phase (ignoring slippage) with the radiation and undulator fields. We may
write the phase relation as
dθ  γ 2  dφ
= k u 1 − R2  + r (2.25)
dz  γ  dz
where the resonant energy is given by
kr  au2 
γ R2 = 1 +  . (2.26)
2ku  2
The above derivation neglects the radiation reaction’s contribution to the
electron energy change. The effect of radiation reaction on an FEL has been
studied, but is still the subject of investigation.
We now turn to the evolution of the radiation field. Beginning with the
wave equation (one dimension of Equation 2.6) and using

Ne
Jx = ec ∑ β xδ (r − ri (t )) (2.27)
i =1
for the current density of the N e particles at a position r, results in

 ∂2 1 ∂2 
 −  ar sin( kr z − ω rt + φr ) =
 ∂z2 c 2 ∂t2 
(2.28)
4πe2 N
sin ( kuz + φu )n
mc 2
n a
e u ∑ γn
δ (z − z n )
n= 1
where ne is the electron (transverse) density, and the simplification
43
px e
βx = ≈ A sin(k uz + φu ) (2.29)
γ γmc ux
was used.
Simplifying Equation 2.29 is generally done by neglecting terms second
order in the derivative. The method used is known variously as the WKB
approximation, eikonal approximation, or the slowly varying envelope
approximation (SVEA). Strictly speaking, it is not necessary to use SVEA
approximations to solve the FEL equations; however, the derivation is greatly
simplified. The results of using a SVEA approximation agree with the
non–approximated results for nearly all FEL cases [128]. Thus, we proceed by
neglecting second order derivatives to arrive at the following (after some
straightforward mathematics):
da r dφ
cos (k rz − ω rt + φr ) − ar r sin (k rz − ω r t +φ r ) =
dz dz
(2.30)
sin(ku z +φ u )n
2
k r  ω pe  Ne
  u∑a δ ( z − zn )
2  ωr  n =1 γn
where the plasma frequency
4πn ee 2
ω pe = (2.31)
m
has been introduced. Further simplification can now be performed by extracting
the even and odd parts, and performing an average over the particles:
2
da r  ω pe  sinθ
= kr   au (2.32)
dz  ωr  γ
and
44
2
dφ r  ω pe  au cosθ
= kr   . (2.33)
dz  ω r  ar γ
Notice that from Equation 2.32 we see that the undulator parameter acts as a
coupling constant between the radiation and the beam.
Equations 2.19, 2.25, 2.32 and 2.33 represent the set of one–dimensional
KMR equations. There is a set of equations for each particle in the distribution.
Before we continue, it is interesting to see how the KMR equations effect
the evolution of the particles. Casual inspection of the KMR equations indicates
that as the electron lose energy, the trajectory of the electron is affected. Thus, the
electron trajectory is determined by both the undulator and radiation fields. The
coupling of the electron motion and the radiation field (though the undulator
field) implies that energy can be exchanged between the beam and radiation.
Indeed, conservation of energy requires that if the beam looses (gains) energy,
the radiation field will gain (lose) the equivalent amount of energy.
The above discussion motivates the definition of the gain in the radiation
field as the change in the electron kinetic energy divided by the initial radiation
energy. We can examine a limiting case — the low–gain regime — by assuming
the radiation field is constant and, as before, we neglect the space charge of the
beam. Then, the electrons do not interact at all, and we can consider the single
particle case. The final result is obtained by summing over the particles in the
beam (whose phases are assumed to be randomly–distributed initially). The result
has been derived numerous times in the literature [129], so we merely quote an
expression for the low gain (also called the small–signal gain),
45
λ3r 2λ1u 2 a2u 3 Ib
G = 4 2π 32 Nu f(x) , (2.34)
σ r (1 + au )
2 2 IA
where the transverse cross–section of the radiation beam, πσ 2r , was assumed to
be larger than the electron beam, and
d  sin2 x/2 
f (x) ≡   (2.35)
d(x/2 )  ( x/2)2 
is the lineshape function (see Figure 2.9) with
ω − ωR
x = 2πNu . (2.36)
ωR
Later, we will see that the above lineshape function is merely the derivative of
the spontaneous–emission lineshape function (see Equation 2.104).
The lineshape function shows that at resonance ( ω = ω R ) no energy exchange
occurs, f (x) = 0 ⇒ G = 0 . Since the gain curve is asymmetric (because the lineshape
function is asymmetric), a particle looses or gains energy depending on whether
it is above or below the resonance energy. For a beam of particles, randomly
distributed in phase, some particles will lose energy while other will gain energy.
The beam particle will be modulated in energy as a function of phase. The
modulation of the beam energy distribution produces a subsequent modulation
of the longitudinal distribution referred to as bunching (see Page 36). Bunching is
the clustering of the electron longitudinal distribution in groups separated by a
(resonant) wavelength.
46
0.6
0.4
0.2
f(x)
-0.2
-0.4
2.6
-0.6
-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12
x
Figure 2.9: The small–gain lineshape function.
We can learn more about the nature of the small–signal gain by a closer
examination of the lineshape function; a maximum is found at x≈2.6. Then, using
the expression for x (Equation 2.36), we find
∆ω 2.6 1 1
≅ ≈ . (2.37)
ωR 2π N u 2N u
We can express the bandwidth and an energy spread by using the resonance
relation (Equation 2.26) to obtain
∆γ 1
≈ (2.38)
γ R 4Nu
where the factor of 2 comes from the differential relationship between ω R and γR.
Thus, we find that the maximum energy which can be extracted from the (initially
47
monoenergetic) beam is ~1/2N u (compare this to the high–gain result found later
in Equation 2.70).
Having very briefly examined the small–gain regime, we turn to an
examination of the high–gain FEL.
2.2.3: High–Gain Theory
The previous section has shown that arriving at an analytic model of the
FEL action is straightforward. However, the implications of the model have yet
to be elucidated. Traditionally, the FEL equations are analyzed to show that
small–signal gain comes about from an asymmetry in the stimulated emission
function. While the small–signal gain is generally of great interest, here we are
concerned with a different regime — high gain.
We will show that the phase bunching mechanism discussed in Section
2.2.2 can lead to exponential radiation production. The high–gain mechanism is
an instability which can occur with appropriate beam parameters. One of the
features of the high–gain regime is that the electrons in the beam effect one
another through the radiation field.
We follow the treatment of Murphy and Pellegrini in analyzing the instability
[116]. They begin by finding an equilibrium state. Then, making small perturbations
to the equilibrium, they search for exponentially growing solutions through an
eigenstate.
48
2.2.3.1: KMR Equations with a Complex Amplitude
The KMR equations derived in Section 2.2.2 can be rewritten in a more
complete and compact form. We will adjust the representation to more closely
match that used by Murphy and Pellegrini (while still using notation consistent
with the remainder of this thesis). Introducing a complex amplitude which
combines the field and phase simplifies the equations (the usefulness of a complex
amplitude is suggested by Equation 2.30):
mc iφ r
α ≡ iωr a e ≡ α 0e iφ r . (2.39)
e r
The energy relation (Equation 2.19) can now be rewritten as
∂γ i
∂t
=−
eau
(α eiθ i + α 0 e− iθ i ) .
2γ i mc 0
(2.40)
where the differential is expressed as a partial of time, the sine term was written
using exponentials for convenience in the later analysis, the bar over α0 is a
complex conjugate, and the particle index i has been explicitly stated. The phase
relation (Equation 2.25) is simplified to
∂θ i  γ2
= ck u 1 − R2  (2.41)
∂z  γi 
by neglecting the radiation contribution in accordance with our assumption that
au>>a r. Finally, the radiation field relation (Equation 2.32) can be written using
the complex amplitude α:

2
∂α 0  ω pe  e− iθ i
= ck r   . (2.42)
∂t  ωr  γi
The above equation requires some justification. The averaged term is, in fact,
defined as the normalized bunching factor:
49
1 Ne e −i θi
b≡ ∑ .
Ne i =1 γ i
(2.43)
In fact, other terms, which have been neglected, contribute to the field. The most
important term neglected is a propagation factor which describes the evolution
of the radiation pulse in the FEL. We are justified in neglecting the radiation
pulse evolution when the electron beam is much longer than the total slippage
length (see Section 2.3.2).
Further into the derivation we obtain an estimate of the bunching factor
(see Section 2.2.3.6). Next, we turn to a means of reducing the FEL equations.
2.2.3.2: The Collective Variable Description
Generally, the FEL equations are recast using a number of defined variables.
The modified relativistic plasma frequency,
4πne e2
Ωp = , (2.44)
mγ 0
is used in place of the non–relativistic term. Equation 2.44 is an unfortunate
choice for the plasma frequency since it is inconsistent with other definitions
(which have a γ 03 in the denominator); however, we continue with the above
definition to be consistent with Bonifacio’s work [86]. The universal FEL parameter
(ρ) is defined in terms of Ω p by [22]

2/3
 a uγ 0Ω p 
ρ≡  2  . (2.45)
 4γ Rcku 
The FEL parameter plays a central role in describing high–gain evolution, and
will be discussed further below. To further simplify the equations the variable
50
 γ2
θ˙0 ≡ cku  1 − R  (2.46)
 γ0 
is employed. A scaled energy detuning parameter is also useful:
γ 02 − γ R2
δ≡ . (2.47)
2γ R2 ρ
We refer to δ as the energy detuning because in an oscillator FEL an input energy
(γ0 ) which is away from the resonant energy (γR) tunes the FEL wavelength away
from resonance. Finally, time is rescaled using

2
γ 
τ ≡ 2ck uρ  R  t. (2.48)
 γ0 
With the above, somewhat cryptic but useful, scaled variables some natural
definitions can be made to simplify the FEL equations. A scaled energy is given
by
γi
Γi ≡ . (2.49)
ργ 0
A scaled phase can be defined:
Ψi ≡ θ i − θ˙0t . (2.50)
Finally, a scaled field variable is suggested by the unscaled FEL equations:
eau i θ˙ 0 t
A≡ 2 α0e . (2.51)
4mc γ R k uρ
2
2
The FEL equations can now be cast as follows:
∂Γi 1A A 
=−  e iΨi + eiΨi  , (2.52)
∂τ ρ  Γi Γi 
∂Ψi 1  1 
= 1− 2 2  , (2.53)
∂τ 2ρ  ρ Γ j 
51
∂A 1 e −i Ψi
= iδA + , (2.54)
∂τ ρ Γi
where the bar over the second term in Equation 2.52 indicates a complex conjugate.
The above equations are the scaled analogies of the scaled FEL equations presented
in Section 2.2.2. Rather than dwell on these physically obscure equations, we
continue to pursue the instability analysis by linearizing the Equations 2.52-2.54.
Following Murphy and Pellegrini further, we examine the equilibrium state given
by a monoenergetic beam with no correlations in phase (no bunching). The
equilibrium state also begins with zero electric field. Then,
A = A0 + A , (2.55)
Ψj = Ψoi + θi , (2.56)
1
Γi = (1+ ηi ) , (2.57)
ρ
where Ψoi = 2π(i − 1)/N e assures a uniform phase distribution, A0 = 0 , and
γi −γ R
ηi ≡ . (2.58)
γR
If we introduce collective variables, we can reduce the linearized equations further.
Note that through an unfortunate choice, Murphy and Pellegrini chose to use
variables which differ from the original work of Bonifacio, Pellegrini and Narducci.
Here we continue with the definitions of Bonifacio, et al. [22]:
−iΨ oj
X ≡ δ ⋅θ i ⋅ e , and (2.59)
1
Y≡ ηe−iΨ oi . (2.60)
ρ
The linearized, collective equations can now be written down:
52
dX
= Y + iρA , (2.61)
dτ
dY
= −A, and (2.62)
dτ
dA
= −iδA − iX − ρY . (2.63)
dτ
While the above collective FEL equations are elegant, they are not very illuminating.
However, Equations 2.61, 2.62 and 2.63 do allow for further analysis. In fact, we
can solve the above equations by assuming solutions of the form e iλτ to yield the
characteristic equation
λ3 −δλ2 + ρλ +1 = 0 , (2.64)
whose roots provide the characteristics of the FEL interaction. Since we are
searching for exponentially growing solutions, we are interested in roots with
negative imaginary–values.
2.2.3.3: Exponential Gain
In the last section it was implied that the FEL can exhibit exponential
growth. Here we find conditions under which the exponential growth occurs.
The characteristic equation (2.64) can be solved by looking at some special cases.
The detuning component of Equation 2.64, δλ2 , is actually misleading for a
single pass, high–gain FEL since the energy of the beam is, by definition, the
resonant energy. The detuning term is interesting in determining the width of the
gain (versus energy) curve – not in understanding the peak growth rate of the
instability. If we neglect the detuning term in Equation 2.64 (or set δ=0), then the
maximum growth rate occurs when Imλ = 3 2 (for ρ < 0.1: see Section 2.2.3.5).
53
Thus, we arrive at the significant result that the exponentially growing part of
the field, as a function of distance down the undulator, is given by
 4πρ 3 
A ∝ exp z . (2.65)
 λu 2 
Hence, the exponential power gain (or growth) length (which is proportional to
2
A ) is dependent on the FEL parameter and is defined as
λu
Lg = , (2.66)
4 3πρ
and the total unsaturated power gain (see following discussion on saturation) is
simply related to the number of undulator periods, N u:
G = 4π 3ρN u . (2.67)
One might expect that the small–signal regime is a limiting case of the high–gain
result. Indeed, the small–signal result is recovered in the limit ρ → 0. The small
signal result cannot be directly obtained from Equation 2.67, rather all three roots
of the characteristic equation (2.64) must be included. Thus, in the small–signal
regime, the three roots of the equation compete, and the net result is the gain. We
do not pursue the small–signal limit further, rather we continue with the high–gain
results.
The unsaturated FEL power growth can be expressed as
z / Lg
P(z) = P0 e (2.68)
where P0 is the initial power within the bandwidth and angular acceptance of the
FEL (see Figure 2.10).
54
Saturation
Oscillations
Power [arbitrary]
Exponential gain
Lethargy
Distance Along Undulator

Figure 2.10: An idealized plot of the power growth in the FEL showing the start–up
from a small input signal (lethargy), the exponential growth and saturation.
There are two interesting regimes shown in Figure 2.10 which we have
neglected to discuss. The lethargy, or start–up regime occurs at the beginning of
an FEL where the instability — the growing exponential — has not yet dominated
over the decaying exponential and the linear terms — the other two roots of the
characteristic equation. Saturation occurs when the nonlinear forces, which are
not accounted for in our linearized theory, damp the instability. A “rule of thumb”
for determining when saturation occurs is after about 10 or 11 power gain lengths.
In reality, the saturation length is dependent on the FEL parameter, and the
number of gain lengths within the saturation length can vary depending on the
device.
55
The FEL gain is a function of several parameters; we examine some of
these dependencies in the next section.
2.2.3.4: Bandwidth, Energy Spread and Angular Effects
The bandwidth in a high–gain FEL can be determined from the detuning
term previously ignored. The cubic equation ceases to have complex roots when
the detuning parameter reaches a threshold value of δ~1.89, assuming ρ is small
(see Figure 2.11). Thus, the exponential growth of the FEL drops to zero when the
detuning parameter exceeds ~ 2. So, from Equation 2.47, we have that
γ 02 −γ 2R
<2 (2.69)
2γ R2 ρ
which we can approximate as
∆γ
< 2ρ , (2.70)
γR
a constraint on the energy spread. By using the resonance condition (Equation
2.26), the bandwidth relation
∆ω
< 4ρ (2.71)
ωR
emerges.
While the conditions established in Equations 2.70 and 2.71 can be
interpreted in a number of ways, we consider only two here:
1) If a beam with an energy spread larger that ~2ρ is used in a

high–gain FEL, the performance will be greatly reduced from
the ideal (no energy spread) case.
56
2) If an input signal with frequency spread (bandwidth) greater
than 4ρ is used for an FEL, only a portion of the signal — the
frequencies within the FEL bandwidth — will be significantly
amplified.
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Im(λ)
0.2
0.1
-0.1
1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
δ
Figure 2.11: A plot of the imaginary part of the root of the FEL cubic equation,
Im(λ), as a function of the detuning parameter, δ.
As we show below, the bandwidth also influences the angular acceptance
of the FEL. The angular acceptance of the FEL can be estimated by understanding
the wavelength dependence of the FEL for off–axis angles. An angular dependence
can be included in the resonance condition by more carefully analyzing the radiation
from an undulator (see Figure 2.12).
57
βz
λu
t1 θ
t2
Figure 2.12: The geometry for off–axis observation of undulator radiation (from
Murphy and Pellegrini [116]).
The time period of radiation reaching an off–axis observer is given by
λu λ u cosθ
T(θ) = − (2.72)
cβ z c
where the first term is the distance in units of time between point 1 and point 2,
while the second term is the delay time t1-t2 . The above expression can readily be
θ2
simplified by using the usual approximations that cosθ ≈ 1− and
2
γ 2 (1 + βz2 ) = 1+ K 2 . Then,
λu  au2 
λr (θ) ≅  1 + + γ 2θ 2  (2.73)
2γ 2  2 
is the expression for the wavelength of radiation as a function of observation
angle. The angular acceptance (or coherence angle) can now be estimated by
inverting the above relation to obtain
1  au2   ∆ω 
θ ca = 1 +   , (2.74)
γR  2  ω 
where the resonant energy has been used (γ=γR). We may rewrite this as
2  au2 
θ ca = 1 +  ρ . (2.75)
γR  2
58
The coherence angle determines the largest angle of radiation which can be incident
upon the undulator and still be amplified by the FEL. In fact, the coherence angle
directly corresponds to the gain bandwidth of the FEL.
In addition to bandwidth, energy spread and angle we can obtain further
information on what effects FEL performance by examining the universal FEL
parameter.
2.2.3.5: The FEL Universal Parameter
The (universal) FEL parameter, ρ, is indeed useful. In addition to the
dependencies shown above, it is possible to show other relations. The efficiency
of the FEL process can be estimated by examining the energy conservation of the
FEL process. Essentially, the energy in the electron beam plus the energy in the
radiation field are a constant (neglecting effects such a particle losses during
transport). Then (from Equation 2.58), the efficiency can be expressed as
γ 0 − γ ∆γ 0
η≡ = ≈ρ, (2.76)
γ0 γ0
where we have made the approximation that the difference between the initial
(γi) and final (γf) energy of the electron beam is the largest energy spread allowed
by the FEL. Under our assumptions, we may extend the conservation of energy
to the conservation of power. The power lost in the electron beam is equal to the
power gained by the optical beam, or the saturated optical power is given by
P ≈ ρPb = ρIb mc2γ e . (2.77)
It is useful to express the FEL parameter in terms of laboratory units [86]:
59
J 1/3 [A − cm−3 ]Bu2/3 [T]λ4/3
u [m]
ρ ≅ 0.136 . (2.78)
γr
While the above expression is simple and contains common quantities, it is not
revealing for scaling purposes (because the wavelength of the FEL is dependent
on the beam energy and undulator parameters). We desire a relation for ρ where
the scaling with beam and undulator parameters are clear. Following Pellegrini,
we introduce the longitudinal beam–brightness [130],
eN b
BL = (2.79)
2πγσ zσ E
where the denominator is the beam’s longitudinal phase–space area. We can now
recast the universal FEL parameter (from Equation 2.45) as

1 3
 2π au2 BL IA 
ρ= 2 λ γ σ
2 2
(2.80)
 8π (1 + au ) ε n β γ 
2 2 r E
where the particle density was expressed as
Nb Nb
n= = , (2.81)
2πσ 2πσ z 2π 2πε n βσ z γ
2
mc 3
and the Alfvén current IA = was introduced. We may now reduce the
e
expression for ρ by casting the beam parameters in terms of the one–dimensional
limits (see Equations 2.70 and 2.128). For convenience we introduce two constants
k1 and k2 by assuming
ρ
σE = (2.82)
k1
and
λr
ε n = k2γ . (2.83)
4π
60
Finally, we introduce a third constant k3 which relates the focusing strength to
the gain length (see Section 2.6.2 for a justification of this relation):
λu
β = k3Lg = k3 . (2.84)
4πρ
Then,
1 au2 BL
ρ= . (2.85)
k 1k 2k3 (1+ au2 ) I A
2
To appreciate the usefulness of the above relation, we can consider some
examples. For the PBPL parameters (see Table 3.1 and Table 3.3) we find that
1 (1)2 926
ρ≈ = 0.02 . (2.86)
(2)(0.18)(1.7) ( 1 +12 ) 17000
2
In general, we find that the constants k1, and k2 are ~ 0.1-10 while k3 ~ 1-10, while
the term containing au ranges from 0.01 to 0.25 (for a u from 0 to 10). Thus, for a
given undulator, the universal FEL parameter can, at best, be about one times the
longitudinal brightness divided by the Alfvén current. Since we typically require
values of ρ ~10 −3 , then we require longitudinal brightness > 20 A. The above
discussion is very generous, and in practice longitudinal brightness > 500 A are
required.
We are now in a position to make an estimate of the bunching parameter.
2.2.3.6: Estimate of Bunching
The bunching parameter (Equation 2.43) can be estimated by taking
advantage of the collective variable description. We expect, from the exponential
behavior of the field (Equation 2.65), that other parameters in the FEL instability
61
might have an exponential behavior. Indeed, as we show below, the (scaled)
bunching parameter (Equation 2.59), X, also exhibits exponential growth. We
then show, again as expected, that the bunching parameter is directly related to
the field. The relation between the field and the power has already been established
(from Equations 2.65 and 2.68). Thus, we can obtain a simple estimate for the
bunching from the power. We begin with an equation for X (by differentiating
Equation 2.61):
d 2X dY dA
2 = + iρ . (2.87)
dτ dτ dτ
Then, from Equation 2.62, we have that
d 2X dA
2 = −A + iρ . (2.88)
dτ dτ
We have already established the exponential behavior for A (again see Equation
2.65), and may substitute it in the above relation to yield
d 2X 1 − ρλ
= A(τ ). (2.89)
dτ 2 λ2
Further, we can ignore the term containing ρ, since it is generally small compared
to 1:
d 2X 1
≈ A(τ ). (2.90)
dτ 2 λ2
The solution to the above equation is exponential:
A(τ ) A0 λτ
X≈ = 2e . (2.91)
λ2 λ
From the definition of the normalized bunching parameter (Equation 2.43),
b, and the scaled bunching parameter (Equation 2.59), X, we have that
62
X(τ ) = γb , (2.92)
where we assumed that all the particle had the same energy, γ i = γ ∀i . Thus,
A0 λτ 4A0 z / L g
b≈ e ≈ e , (2.93)
λ2γ 3γ
3
where we used the maximum growth condition, Im (λ ) = . Hence, we have the
2
general relation that
b(z) A(z) P(z)

= = . (2.94)
b sat A sat Psat
1
Finally, since bsat ~ , we have that
γ
b(z) ≈
2πσ z
(
P exp z Lg
ρeNbγmc 3 0
) . (2.95)
where P0 is the start–up power of the FEL.
Next we turn to understanding the FEL start–up power, and attempt to
obtain a relation for P 0.
2.3: START–UP ANALYTIC MODELS
Starting an FEL from noise refers to the process of amplifying the
spontaneous emission produced by the beam in the undulator. Often this process
is referred to as Self Amplified Spontaneous Emission (SASE) [131, 132]. While
the concepts involved in SASE are straightforward, the analytic modeling is not.
Difficulties arise from the desire to describe a quantum process — spontaneous
63
emission — by a classical formalism, and from the fact that the output of an
SASE FEL depends on the microscopic details of the electron particle distribution.
In attempting to model SASE, workers have introduced a scale length over
which microscopic variations are averaged by the FEL. The cooperation length
can be defined by [133]
λr
Lc = . (2.96)
4πρ
The cooperation length is in fact the amount of slippage which occurs a gain
length and describes the interplay between gain and slippage effects: it determines
the scale over which the slippage tends to “smooth out” any non–uniformity
along the radiation. If the initial noise exhibits fluctuations on a smaller length
scale, the slippage process tends to smooth these variations to a scale length ~Lc.
The cooperation length can therefore be thought of as a measure of the portion of
the electron beam “sampled” by the FEL process during a gain length [134].
Some researchers then devise relations which give the average spontaneous
power within a cooperation length, and then assume this as an input to the FEL
[135]. While these models do describe the general process which is believed to
occur in an FEL (and has been shown to occur in numerical models), the analytic
results do not provide accurate estimates of the FEL power.
What is desired from an analytic model is the effective input–power to the
FEL. One can model an SASE FEL by assuming that the start–up power from the
first part of the undulator acts as a coherent input to the remainder of the FEL.
The remainder of the FEL can then be treated as a conventional amplifier, modeled
64
by the KMR equations (see Section 2.2.2). The above idea raises a number of
questions:
♦ How is the effective input power related to the spontaneous

emission?
♦ Over what length of the undulator does the FEL radiate

spontaneously?
♦ How do the microscopic details of the electron distribution affect

the FEL?
The above questions have yet to be satisfactorily answered by analytic
models. Ultimately, only experiments will be able to fully address the start–up
issues. Nevertheless, there exists a simplistic model that appears consistent with
numerical simulations (see Figure 2.13). The first gain–length of the undulator
can be considered as the spontaneous radiator. A portion of the spontaneous
emission produced in the first gain length is amplified by the remainder of the
undulator. The result is a (partially) coherent output signal. Next we consider
what portion of the spontaneous emission is amplified by the FEL.
One Gain Length Rest of Undulator
Spontaneous emission Amplified coherent output
Figure 2.13: A simplistic self amplified spontaneous emission model. A portion

of the spontaneous emission produced in the first gain length of the undulator is
amplified by the remainder of the undulator.
65
We have already seen that an FEL has a limited bandwidth and a limited
acceptance or coherence angle: The FEL will only amplify a signal which lies
within the bandwidth and coherence angle. Thus, the portion of the spontaneous
emission that contributes to the effective input signal is that which lies within the
bandwidth and coherence angle of the FEL comprised of the remainder of the undulator.
As we discuss in the next section, the spontaneous emission in one gain–length
has a much larger bandwidth and angular spread than an FEL amplifies with
multiple gain–lengths. Thus, only a portion of the spontaneous emission is
amplified by the FEL. Hence, start–up powers tend to be very small.
2.3.1: Spontaneous Emission Basics
An accelerated charged particle will radiate electromagnetic energy. The
nature of the radiation which occurs under periodic acceleration (undulator
radiation) is what we will consider in this section. We begin by reviewing the
results of (single particle) spontaneous synchrotron radiation – radiation for a
particle in circular motion [136]:
♦ The power radiated by an accelerated charge is given by
2 e2 6  ˙ 2
( )
γ  β − β × β˙  ,
2
P= (2.97)
3 c
the relativistic (Liénard) Larmor formula, where β˙ is the
acceleration (in units of c).
♦ For circular motion,
66
2 e2c 4 4
P≅ βγ (2.98)
3 r2
where r is the radius of orbit.
♦ For relativistic motion ( β → 1), the radiation is peaked forward

1
in narrow cone with opening angle θ ~ .
2γ
♦ The instantaneous angular distribution of the power is given by
[ ]
2
˙
dP e 2 nˆ × ( nˆ − β) × β
= . (2.99)
(1 − nˆ ⋅ β )
5
dΩ 4πc
♦ In general, the differential energy spectrum radiated — the energy
per unit solid angle per unit frequency — is given by
[ ]e
2
d2I e2
+∞
nˆ × (nˆ − β ) × β˙ 
iω  t−nˆ ⋅
r( t )

∫
 c 
= dt (2.100)
dω dΩ 4π 2c (1 − β ⋅ nˆ )
2
−∞
where r(t) is the particle’s path of motion.
We can begin to evaluate the radiation in an undulator by using Equation
2.97 to obtain the total power, and Equation 2.100 to understand the energy
spectrum. It is straightforward (see Jackson [136], pp. 670) to show that Equation
2.100 can be reduced to

2
+∞  r (t) 
d2I e 2ω 2 iω  t− nˆ ⋅ 
∫ nˆ × [nˆ × β ]e
 c 
= dt . (2.101)
dω dΩ 4π2c −∞
Now, we require the trajectory (r) of a particle in an undulator. We will only
consider the on–axis radiation, where θ=0 and nˆ = zˆ so that nˆ ⋅ r(t) = z(t). In a
planar undulator, we can find a simple equation of motion,
a 2u
z(t) ≈ cβt + sin(2k ucβt ) (2.102)
8γ 2 k uβ 2
67
by integrating Equations 2.173 and 2.174 (see page 95), and applying a trigonometric
half–angle formula. The sinusoidal dependence of the longitudinal coordinate
introduces a phase term in Equation 2.101 which can be rewritten using the fact
that
∞
e −i α sin θ = ∑ J (α)en
−inθ
(2.103)
n =−∞
where Jn is the Bessel function (of the first kind) of order n. Then, we arrive at the
relation [116]
−2
N u2 e2 γ 2au2  au2 
2
d2I  sinx 
= 1 +  JJ   (2.104)
dω dΩ c  2  x 
where we have ignored all the higher harmonics,
 au   au 
JJ ≡ J0  2  − J1  2 , (2.105)
 2(1+ au )   2(1 + au )
and
ω − ωR
x =π Nu . (2.106)
ωR
The differential spectrum (Equation 2.104) exhibits the characteristic “sinc”
dependence with a peak and the resonant frequency, ωR.
The above results are for a single particle. For multiple particles, as are
found in a beam, the longitudinal distribution must be taken into account. We
must introduce a phase factor for each electron which determines how the fields
of the N particles will superimpose. Thus, the single particle spontaneous emission
result (Equation 2.104) must be multiplied by a factor

Nb 2
B= ∑e iω tn
(2.107)
n= 1
68
where tn is the arrival time of the nth electron into the undulator. The above term
is recognizable as being related to the bunching factor from the FEL model (see
Equation 2.43). A few special cases can be noted: if the distribution of particles is
uniform, B=0 and no emission will occur; if the distribution is random, then B=Nb
and the usual uncorrelated spontaneous emission occurs; however, if the
distribution of electrons is clustered in microbunches separated by a radiation
wavelength, then B = N b2 and the spontaneous emission will be coherent.
Following Kim’s work [137], we may integrate the differential spectrum to
yield a number of useful formulas expressed in practical units. The differential
photon–flux (in units of photons/second/mrad/0.1% bandwidth ) can be written
as
dFγ au2
≅ 1.74 × 10 −8 Ne2 Eb2 [MeV]I b[A]JJ (2.108)
(1 + au2 2)
2
dΩ
where Fg is the number of photons per second (flux), and the frequency integration
was over a 0.1% bandwidth. The angular distribution of the photons can be
approximated by a Gaussian to yield a relation for the total photon flux (in units
of [ photons/second/mrad/0.1% bandwidth ]:
Fγ ≅ 7.15 ×10 13 N e a2u JJI b[A] . (2.109)
An expression for the total power is more difficult to obtain, but Kim
arrives at the approximate relation that
P[kW] = 6.4 × 10−6 Eb2 [MeV]Bu2 [T]I[A]Lu[m] . (2.110)
For a more detailed analysis of the spontaneous emission from an undulator,
we turn to a numerical analysis. In Appendix 8.1 we present a set of equations
69
which can be solved numerically for the radiation from an undulator. This
numerical method is used in Section 3.1.1 to evaluate the effective start-up level
in the PBPL FEL.
Two aspects of the numerical calculation that deserve further discussion
are the bandwidth variation and angular limits — the geometry — imposed by
the undulator. The emission opening angle and bandwidth are a function of the
number of undulator periods traversed. To account for the emission variation
along the undulator, the bandwidth scaling is used. Then, simple geometry is
used to determine the angular limits (see Figure 2.14).
One Gain Length
Figure 2.14: The angular distribution of the spontaneous emission as a function

of the distance along the undulator is shown graphically.
The bandwidth limit of Equation 2.71 is not appropriate for a portion of
the FEL. Rather, we use the relation that
∆ω 1
≈ . (2.111)
ω Nu
Then, from Equation 2.74 we find that the acceptance angle of the FEL is given by
1  au2  1
θ ca = 1 +  . (2.112)
γR  2  Nu
70
Thus, we integrate along the undulator, for the first gain length, while adjusting
the bandwidth and angle over which the radiation is calculated. The numerical
calculation of the start-up power proceeds by integrating over slices of undulator
and using the appropriate angular acceptance and bandwidth for the given slice.
The radiation from the slices is then summed to obtain the total start-up radiation.
The above method is a refinement of the conventional method of calculating
start–up which ignores the bandwidth and angular corrections.
Before we go on, we can take the above comments into account and produce
a simple analytic estimate of the start–up power. Multiplying the undulator
spontaneous emission within a gain length (Equation 2.110 with Lu=Lg) by the
bandwidth and angle limits we obtain
 a2   Lg 
P0[kW] ≈ 3.3 ×10 −6 Eb[MeV]Bu2 [T]I[A] 1 + u   3 2  . (2.113)
 2  N u 
The above expression can also be combined with Equation 2.95 to obtain an
analytic expression for the bunching parameter.
While the subject of start–up has many more aspects not yet covered, and
is presently a topic of active research, we now leave the subject to consider the
limitations of our 1D model.
2.3.2: Limits of Validity
The analysis of the previous two sections yields a simple, compact set of
equations which offer insight into the FEL process. However, a large number of
assumptions and approximations were used to derive the relations. Here we will
71
attempt to examine some of the more significant omissions. We will also attempt
to determine the limits of applicability for the one dimensional model.
♦ The quantum limit: It was stated in Section 2.2.2 that quantum
mechanical effects can be ignored so long as the wavelength of
interest was much longer than the Compton wavelength (λc).
This point requires clarification. Brau [3] points out that quantum
effects are ignorable if the recoil distance of an electron is much
smaller than the wavelength of the incident photon during the
time it takes for the photon wavepacket to pass the electron
(speaking semi–classically). Brau shows that the limit
2πN uλc
λr >> (2.114)
γ
should be satisfied in order to avoid quantum effects. Thus,
quantum effects only become an issue for very short wavelength,
very long undulators, and low energy devices. While other
quantum mechanical issues exist, it is generally safe to ignore
them in free electron lasers.
♦ The Compton regime: The one–dimensional theory derived
previously ignores collective effects between the particles: space
charge is not taken into account. Brau [3] derives a condition for
the Compton limit by first examining the plasma frequency of
the beam and determining the number of plasma oscillations
the electrons perform during the propagation through the
72
undulator. Brau requires that the number of plasma oscillations
be small compared to one. He casts the limit that collective effects
are ignorable in terms of the beam current:
π 2mc 3γ
Ie << . (2.115)
2eN u
However, the above relation is not strictly correct. In fact, it is
the plasma wavelength compared to the gain length that is
important. The wavelength of the plasma oscillations is indicative
of the distance over which debunching can occur, while the gain
length characterized the distance over which bunching forces
are significant. Thus, we may require that
λp 1
Lg << = , (2.116)
2π kp
where
4πre nb
kp = , (2.117)
γ3
is the plasma oscillation wavenumber.
Again, low energy and long undulator devices are more
susceptible to collective effects. Brau points out that an energy
spread can damp the collective oscillation so that the above limit
can be too stringent. Thus, we continue to ignore collective effects.
♦ Transverse Space charge: transverse space–charge forces can
also effect FEL performance. The extent of transverse
space–charge influence can be estimated by comparing the radial
73
space charge force to the focusing force and the emittance “force”.
We turn to the envelope equation (see Equation 5.4):
ε n2 2I
σ ′′ = 2 3 + 3 − kβ2σ (2.118)
γ σ γ IAσ
where the terms on the right side are the emittance, space charge
and focusing, respectively. The equation is sometime linearized
by writing
ε n2 2I
σ ′′ = 2 3 + 3 σ + k 2β σ , (2.119)
γ σ γ IAσ 2eq
where σ eq is the equilibrium beam size. Comparing the space
charge to emittance terms yields (see Equation 5.5)
2I σ 2
RS /ε = . (2.120)
γI A ε n2
On the other hand, comparing the space charge term to the
focusing term yields
2I
RS / f . (2.121)
γ I Aσ eq2 kβ2
3
We require that the above two ratios be small compared to 1.
♦ Undulator averaging: All of the theories presented in this work
rely on equations where the undulator motion has been averaged.
Undulator averaging is generally considered an acceptable
practice with the exception of long wavelength (microwave)
devices where the undulator period may be comparable to the
wavelength [138]. Another instance in which undulator averaged
equations can be problematic is when undulator errors are
74
included [139]. While it is possible to impose undulator errors
on averaged models, there are potential problems if the details
of the undulator motion are not taken into account (see Section
3.3.6). In general, averaging introduces few problems and greatly
simplifies the equations.
♦ Changes within a gain length: The gain length sets the length
scale over which changes in the electron beam, radiation field
and undulator parameter can be detrimental. In general, changes
in beam parameters (such as the size due to focusing or mismatch)
that occur on length scales shorter than the gain length will be
detrimental to the FEL action. The simple one–dimensional model
does not necessarily account for such changes in an accurate
manner.
♦ The limits: It is possible to write down a set of limits which
determine when the one–dimensional model is valid. These limits
are the same limits that the one–dimensional model sets for FEL
operation. Certain FEL designs may not meet the one–dimensional
limits, but still operate well. In other words, an FEL that meets
the 1D limits should operate well, but an FEL which violates the
limits may also operate well (since the 1D theory is no longer
valid, it cannot predict the performance of the FEL). Nevertheless,
the one–dimensional limits are a guideline for high FEL
performance.
75
The first limit is on the energy spread, and was given by
Equation 2.70; we rewrite it here in an approximate form:
σ E <˜ ρ (2.122)
where σE is the uncorrelated (incoherent) beam energy spread.
By the uncorrelated energy spread we mean the energy spread,
within a slice of the beam, that is not a function of the position.
The second limit is on the Rayleigh range of the optical beam.
By requiring that the Rayleigh range be the order of, or longer
than, the undulator length, diffraction effects can be safely
ignored:
ZR >˜ Lu . (2.123)
The above limit is often too stringent because it ignores the
possibility of gain guiding, which implies that the FEL produces
more radiation than is lost through diffraction. The effective
Rayleigh range of a guided beam is longer than the unguided
Rayleigh range. The limit on the Rayleigh range is often relaxed
so that it only needs to be longer than a gain length:
ZR >˜ Lg . (2.124)
The third limit is on the beam emittance. The one–dimensional
model requires that the beam emittance be smaller than the optical
emittance. The emittance requirement is analogous to being able
to ignore diffraction. We can estimate the optical emittance by
76
using the second limit, that the Rayleigh range is on the order of
the undulator length. Then, the optical spot size is given by
σ r ≈ λ rLu , (2.125)
and the diffraction limited optical divergence is specified by
λr
∆θr ≈ . (2.126)
Lu
Thus, the optical emittance is approximately [140]
ε r ≈ σ r ∆θ r ≈ λr . (2.127)
Hence, the electron beam emittance limit can be expressed as
ε N <˜ λrγ , (2.128)
where the electron beam’s normalized emittance is used. The
equation above can be understood as requiring the electron beam
and optical beam to overlap well in phase space. Indeed, the
above limit is rarely significant. To understand the relevance of
the limit we can examine the scaling. The beam emittance (not
normalized) scales as the inverse of the beam energy, while the
radiation emittance scales as the radiation wavelength. However,
the radiation wavelength scales as the inverse of the beam energy
squared (from the resonance relation). Hence, the above emittance
limit is only significant for very high energy cases.
♦ Ignoring the optical parameter: We made use of the simplification
au>>a r by arguing that this holds true for most FEL designs. We
77
can examine the validity of this assumption with an example. A
handy formula for the undulator parameter is given by [141]
au ≈ 0.93Bu[T ]λu[cm ] . (2.129)
A typical range of magnetic fields for undulators is 0.1 to 1 Tesla
with a period greater than 1 cm. Thus, a minimum value for the
undulator parameter is au~0.1, with numbers closer to 1 being
more typical.
A useful formula for the optical (laser) parameter (a r) can be
expressed as
λr
ar ≈ 3.4 P [TW ] , (2.130)
σr r
where the units for the radiation wavelength and the spot size
match each other. If we assume a diffraction limited spot size,
then the radiation parameter can be simplified to
a*r ~ Pr[TW ] , (2.131)
where the * indicates the diffraction limit. FEL seed sources range
in power from watts to gigawatts. At seed powers as high as 100
MW, the radiation parameter is only 0.01. Thus, unless the FEL
has a very weak undulator, or strong seed, the approximation
au>>a r is valid. The one exception mentioned previously is an
inverse FEL, where the drive laser is chosen to have a large
radiation parameter.
78
♦ The Bessel factor: When a one–dimensional model is extended
to an FEL with a helical undulator, the symmetric geometry
does not introduce problems. However, when a planar undulator
is modeled, as was done here, the asymmetries in the undulator
require the use of the overlap function
 au   au 
JJ ≡ J0  2  − J1  2 . (2.132)
 2(1+ au )   2(1 + au )
♦ Time independence: Our model results ignored time dependent
effects. Time dependence is significant when the relation between
the undulator field, radiation field and beam changes explicitly
with time (as opposed to distance down the undulator). An
example of a time dependent effect is slippage. When the radiation
field slips by the beam bunch a significant amount in the length
of the undulator, then time dependent effects become
consequential. Slippage can be ignored when the limit
σ b >> L s (2.133)
is satisfied, where
Ls = λr Nu (2.134)
is the slippage length.
In general, we can ignore time dependent effects when the
beam (bunch) length is much longer than other relevant length
scales (i.e., gain length or undulator length).
79
Although one–dimensional models can be extended to include many effects
neglected here, the large number of approximations used suggest the need for a
more rigorous model with fewer assumptions. Ultimately, a three–dimensional
model is desired.
2.4: THE 3D ANALYTIC MODEL
A three–dimensional FEL model inherently accounts for planar as well as
helical undulators, elliptical beams, and diffraction because transverse degrees of
freedom are included. Energy spread, emittance, and focusing can naturally be
included in a 3D theory. By including the geometries and effects that were not
included in the model of Section 2.2.3, many of the caveats and limits delineated
in Section 2.3.2 are avoided.
Various methods have been developed to derive a manageable set of 3D
FEL equations. Chin, et al., have developed a means of approximately solving the
Maxwell–Vlasov equations by expanding the particle distribution [142-144]. Chin’s
approach has the advantage of producing an accurate model which is well suited
to simple (calculator or spreadsheet) numerical solution. In addition, the model
directly includes betatron oscillations (focusing), emittance effects and energy
spread. Finally, the model is well suited to optimization of FEL performance by
variation of one or more chosen parameters.
80
Some of the results of the theory are presented in Section 3.1.3 and Appendix
8.2 where a MathCAD worksheet containing calculations using the 3D theory is
presented.
2.5: BUNCHING AND COHERENT TRANSITION RADIATION
Having established bunching as a mechanism for FEL gain, we turn to
theoretical means of estimating and diagnosing bunching. In addition to this
theoretical work, Section 5.8 describes implementing a bunching diagnostic for
the PBPL system and Appendix 8.3 contains the numerical calculations.
2.5.1: Transition Radiation
Single particle Transition Radiation (TR), and the use of TR in particle
beam diagnostics, is a mature subject. The differential emission spectrum (energy
per unit solid angle per unit frequency) of a highly relativistic electron can be
expressed by [145]
d 2U e2 sin2 θ e2 θ2
≅ ≅ , (2.135)
dωdΩ 4π 2c ( 1− β cosθ)2 π 2c (θ 2 + γ −2 )2
where ω is the frequency and θ is the angle of observation. This distribution is
often said to be peaked off–axis at the approximate angle γ −1 . However, since the
angular distribution is weighted by an additional factor of sin(θ) , the peak of the
distribution is often broader than anticipated. As an example, refer to Figure 2.15
81
which plots the expected number of photons per unit angle within a one percent
bandwidth (from Equation 2.135) for a 12.5 MeV PBPL–like beam (see Table 3.1
for other beam parameters). The peak of the distribution is at ~ 5°, while γ −1 ≈ 2o .
6 10 -4
5 10 -4
4 10 -4
dN/dθ
3 10 -4
2 10 -4
1 10 -4
0 10 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
θ [deg]
Figure 2.15: The expected number of TR photons per unit angle, and within a 1%
bandwidth, as a function of angle.
From the above example, we note that the number of photons, in a one
percent bandwidth, per electron is few (~ 10−4 ) and the photons have a large
angular spread. To collect half of the photons one must have a 15 degree acceptance.
As will be shown, the coherent portion of the TR spectrum exhibits the opposite
characteristics: narrow bandwidth and angular spread, and, potentially, many
more photons per electron.
82
In a bunched beam, as is produced in an FEL, several microbunches contribute
to the coherent enhancement. In the next Section we treat Coherent Transition
Radiation (CTR) from microbunches.
2.5.2: Equations for the Microbunching Diagnostic
Coherent transition radiation has been studied by a number of authors
both theoretically and experimentally [146-148]. We begin with some of these
authors’ results in order to derive the desired equations for CTR emission from a
microbunched beam. Then, we apply a particle distribution which is suitable for
a microbunched beam. This approach to the subject of CTR from microbunches
has been presented in a more compact form elsewhere [149].
Before beginning the derivation it is useful to have a physical picture of
the problem at hand (see Figure 2.16). A beam with a microbunched structure is
incident upon a surface used as a transition radiator. The beam is assumed to
have been bunched by the free electron laser action, although other causes of the
bunching could be treated as well. For simplicity, the transition radiator is assumed
to be perpendicular to the beam and only the forward radiation is considered.
83
TR Foil
IR from FEL
Bunched Beam from FEL
To Collecting
Optics
Reflected IR Coherent Transition

Radiation
Figure 2.16: Conceptual diagram of the coherent transition radiation

microbunching diagnostic.
Coherent transition radiation has been shown to be proportional to the
square of the number of particles incident on the radiator times a form factor.
The form factor is essentially the Fourier transform of the particle distribution.
Thus, the differential energy spectrum of the coherent transition radiation can be
written as
d 2U d2U
≅ Nb2 F (ω,θ ) single e -
, (2.136)
dω dΩ dωdΩ
where N b is the total number of electrons in the bunch, ω is the frequency and Ω
is the solid angle, and
d 2U e2 sin2 θ e2 θ2
≅ ≅ (2.137)
dω dΩ single e - 4π 2c ( 1 − β cosθ) 2 π 2c (θ 2 + γ −2 ) 2
is the single highly relativistic electron transition radiation differential energy
spectrum. As usual, γ −2 ≡ 1 − β 2 , and β = v/c . Finally,
r r 3 2
F (ω ,θ ) = ∫∫∫ g(r )h(z)exp (
−ik ⋅x d x ) (2.138)
84
is the form factor, discussed previously, where g(r) and h(z) represent the transverse
r
(radial) and longitudinal (axial) particle distributions of the beam, and k is the
radiation wavenumber.
It should be noted that Equation 2.135 ignores the divergence of the particle
beam. This assumption is generally valid since the CTR, at energies of interest, is
emitted at angles much larger than typical beam divergence angles. Equation
2.135 also assumes that the particle distribution is monoenergetic and highly
relativistic. Finally, the incoherent contribution to the radiation is also ignored
since it is not of interest here.
The form factor of Equation 2.138 can be defined, separating longitudinal
and transverse components, as F (ω ,θ ) = FT FL . The transverse component can be
written as
2
FT = ∫∫ g(r)exp (−ikr sin(θ)cos(φ))rdrdϕ . (2.139)
The angular (φ) integral is a Bessel function. In general, a Bessel function of
integer order can be represented as

2π
1
Jm (x) =
2πi m ∫ exp(i( xcosφ − mφ ))dφ , (2.140)
0
and thus, the transverse form factor can be written as
2
FT = ∫ g(r)J 0(−rksinθ)rdr . (2.141)
Now the specific particle distribution, g(r), must be considered. For
simplicity, and comparison with other common models, we consider a Gaussian
radial profile:
85
 r2 
exp − 2 
 2σ r 
g(r) = (2.142)
2πσ 2r
where σr is the usual standard deviation of the radial distribution. Inserting
Equation 2.142 into Equation 2.141 produces an integral which is available in
standard tables:
∞
βm  β2
∫ x e J m (βx)dx =
2
m + 1 −αx
exp −  . (2.143)
0 (2α )m +1  4α 
Thus,
(
FT = exp − ( kσ r sin(θ)) .
2
) (2.144)
It should be noted that the radial integration was performed out to infinity. This
is generally not a problem since beam sizes are small compared to both the
radiator and surrounding beampipe or other enclosure.
We now turn to the longitudinal form factor which requires a specific
model of the particle distribution. The bunching action of the FEL, or other
periodic system, can be modeled using a modulated Gaussian:
1  z2  ∞
h(z) = exp  − 2  ∑ b n cos(nkr z) (2.145)
(2π )1/2 σ z  2σ z  n= 0
where kr is the FEL resonant wavenumber, σz is the standard deviation of the
longitudinal distribution and bn are the bunching factors with b0 ≡ 1 . How
appropriate this model is for experiments such as advanced accelerator concepts
has yet to be evaluated. Regardless, the longitudinal distributions of a high–gain
free electron laser are reasonably modeled by Equation 2.145.
The longitudinal form factor can then be expressed as
86
2
FL = ∫ h(z)exp (−ikz cos(θ))dz
 . (2.146)
2
∞ ⌠  z2  1 inkr z
∑ b   exp − 2σ 2 − ikzcosθ  2 (e + e )
1 − inkr z
=
2π σ z n =0 n ⌡  z
Here the cosine term was replaced with exponentials to allow for solution of the
integral. Using the standard expression

+∞
π  β2 
∫ exp(−αx − βx) dx = α exp 4α 
2
(2.147)
−∞
we find
2
1 ∞   2σz 
2
 2 σz  
2
FL = ∑ bn  exp − (kcos θ − nk r )  + exp  −( k cosθ + nkr )  . (2.148)
2 n= 0   2  2 
The square of the sum can be approximated by noting that the radiation wavelength
is typically much smaller than the electron beam length. In a high–gain FEL, the
electron beam typically overlaps many radiation wavelengths. This can be stated
as krσz>>1. Under the above approximation, the sum can be simplified to read
1 ∞ 2
[ (
FL ≅ ∑ bn exp −(k cosθ − nk r ) σ z2 .
4 n =0
2
)] (2.149)
Hence, we have arrived at the differential energy spectrum of the CTR
from a beam microbunched in an FEL:

d 2U N 2e 2 1 ∞
[ ( )] (
≅ b 2 ∑ bn2 exp −(k cosθ − nkr ) σ z2 exp −( kσ r sinθ)
dωdΩ 4π c 4 n= 0
2 2
)
sin2 θ
( 1 − βcosθ ) 2
.
(2.150)
This expression can be greatly simplified if we only consider the CTR
from the FEL fundamental (resonant) frequency. Then, only the n=1 term needs
to be kept in the sum. Notice that the n=0 term contributes, and can be evaluated
separately since it has no relation to microbunching. Additionally, the energy
87
spectrum can be converted into a photon number spectrum so that the number of
CTR photons can ultimately be obtained by integration:
d 2N N 2α 1 2
≅ b
dkdθ n= 1 2πk 4 [ ( )] (
b1 exp − (kcosθ − nkr ) σ z2 exp − (kσr sinθ )
2 2 sin 3 θ
)
(1− β cosθ )2
(2.151)
e2
where α = is the fine structure constant. We can integrate the differential
hc
spectrum over a narrow frequency band (the peak) to yield
dN 1 α (N b b1 )
2
≅
sin3 θ
dθ 4 8πkrσ z ( 1− β cosθ ) [
2 exp −(k rσ r sinθ )
2
]. (2.152)
The angular spectrum above can be integrated approximately in the limit that
θ ≤ 2 krσ r << 1 γ << 1. Then,
α ( Nb b1 )
2
dN
dθ
≈−
θ3
8π krσ z (γ −2 +θ 2 )2 exp − (k[rσ rθ )
2
]. (2.153)
The integral of the above relation with respect to θ is available in tables, and
yields
α ( Nb b1 )   k σ  2   k σ  2    k σ  2  
2
N≈ exp  r r   Ei  − r r   1 +  r r   + 1  (2.154)

4 2π krσ z   γ    γ    γ   
where Ei is the exponential–integral function and can be expressed as
Ei(− x) = e − x ∑ ( −1) x −k (k − 1)! .

k
(2.155)
So, we can write the expression for the number of photons emitted as
α ( Nb b1 )  ∞   kσ  
2n
n γ 
2
N≈ ∑ ( −1)   ( n − 1)!  1+ r r  + 1 . (2.156)

4 2π krσ z  n =1  kr σr   γ  
Finally, only the first two terms of the sum contribute significantly in our estimate
(θ ≤ 2 krσ r << 1 γ << 1). We can now write that
88
α ( Nb b1 )  γ 
2 4
N≈   . (2.157)
4 2π krσ z  krσ r 
Equation 2.157 represents a simple relation for the number of photons
emitted by the CTR process from a microbunched beam. In practice, a numerical
integration of Equation 2.152 is simple and accurate. We investigate the CTR
result for the PBPL beam in Section 5.8 and Appendix 8.3.
The bunching process is clearly central to FELs. In addition, bunching
plays a role in a number of advanced accelerator schemes. In a device such as the
FEL, the beam density plays a key role in determining how effectively the bunching
will occur. Thus, maintaining a high beam density throughout an FEL is pivotal
in maximizing the bunching process. We now examine various methods for
preserving and increasing the beam transverse–density in an undulator.
2.6: FOCUSING IN PLANAR UNDULATORS
The PBPL FEL does not employ external focusing along the undulator.
Nevertheless, the natural focusing of the undulator affects beam dynamics and
FEL performance. More importantly, external focusing is central to many future
FEL systems. The sections which follow and Appendix 8.4 discuss the relevant
issues surrounding focusing in high–gain FELs. This section and Appendix 8.4
are based upon three papers by G. Travish and J. Rosenzweig [111, 150, 151]. In
addition, the work follows and strongly relies on the seminal paper by E. T.
Scharlemann [117].
89
2.6.1: Overview of Undulator Focusing
Planar undulators, especially hybrid designs, offer a number of advantages
over other types of undulators: high peak fields, simplicity, beamline accessibility
and field profile flexibility. However, planar, as opposed to helical, undulators
only have “natural” focusing in the transverse dimension normal to the undulation
plane. This natural focusing, however, can be symmetrized by appropriate magnetic
field shaping that introduces a sextupole component to the field. Symmetric
natural focusing is desirable because it increases the average beam density without
the requirement for additional (external) fields (see Appendix 8.4). The preservation
of the FEL interaction by natural focusing occurs because the phase relation
between the optical field and the electron wiggle motion is maintained. The
reason the FEL phase is unaffected by natural focusing is because the average
(over an undulator period) longitudinal velocity of the electron is constant over a
betatron oscillation. As a side note, it is pointed out that systems such as the
PBPL FEL which do not have symmetric natural focusing are difficult to simulate
in two dimensions.
Divergence of the electron beam in an FEL, regardless of its source, reduces
efficiency through a lowering in beam density, and by consequent reduction in
the beam overlap with the radiation field. Relevant length scales for focusing
include the undulator period, radiation wavelength and electron beam parameters.
Focusing effects can be examined using the dimensionless FEL parameter, ρ,
introduced in Section 2.2.3.5. In SI units we may write (see Equation 2.78)
J 1/3 [A/m2 ]Bu2/3 [T]λ4/3

u [m]
ρ ≅ 0.14 , (2.158)
γr
90
where J is the beam current density and the remainder of the notation is as given
in Table 1.5. Note that Equation 2.158 is strictly valid for undulators with only
natural focusing. Other authors have derived expressions for ρ which attempt to
include focusing [142]. Here we treat focusing as an addition to an existing FEL
design, and in the appendix concern ourselves with the details of the effects of a
particular type of focusing (strong sextupole) on its performance.
Recall that in the high–gain regime of an FEL, the power gain e–folding
length is approximately (see Equation 2.66)
λu
Lg = . (2.159)
4 3πρ
The output power, P, as a function of the distance along the undulator, z, may be
( )
expressed as P = P0 exp z/Lg where P 0 is the initial power (at z=0). Thus a decrease
in the beam density, J, will adversely affect gain. Maintaining and increasing the
beam density through focusing is thus highly desirable.
Performance is adversely affected in high–gain free electron lasers if
variations occur on a scale shorter than a gain length (see Section 2.3.2). Requiring
that the longitudinal electron–velocity is not changed within a gain length imposes
a limit on the average strength of strong focusing:
βavg > Lg (2.160)
1
where βavg = is the average inverse betatron wavenumber (not the normalized
kβ
velocity). Note that the gain length is treated as an inverse wavenumber. The
necessity for the electron beam to overlap well with the output radiation can be
expressed, for a beam with no external focusing, as a limit on the emittance (see
91
Equation 2.128). When focusing is taken into account, a limit on the emittance as
a function of the focusing strength can be given:
βρ (1+ a2u 2 )
εn ≤ . (2.161)
2γ
Equation 2.161 is derived from Equations 2.159 and 2.160 in the one–dimensional
limit assuming no energy spread, and can be useful for setting an upper limit on
how strong a given FEL’s focusing channel can be. As the examples of Appendix
8.4.5 indicate, the above expression is typically not the most stringent limit. A
practical limit is generally stronger than Equation 2.161. The need to have a small
phase–advance per cell (again, see Appendix 8.4.5), to avoid beam “scalloping”
and large transverse velocities, limits the betafunction to be a few times greater
than the focusing–cell length. The focusing–cell length, in turn, is limited by how
short the focusing elements can be.
Various FEL focusing schemes have been considered and presented in the
literature: quadrupole focusing [152, 153], solenoidal confinement [154-156] and
ion focusing [157, 158]. Little experimental work has been performed on these
various schemes with the exception of quadrupole focusing. Some of these schemes
are reviewed in Appendix 8.4.1. Next we concern ourselves with natural focusing
in undulators.
2.6.2: Natural Focusing
The idealized undulator field used in Section 2.2.2 (see Equation 2.7) is not
sufficient for understanding the focusing in an undulator. Here we require a
92
model which accounts for the off–axis fields encountered by a beam traversing
an undulator. A simple expression which both satisfies Maxwell’s equations and
describes off–axis fields is given by
[ ]
B = B0 yˆ cosh(ku y)cos(k uz) − zˆ sinh(ky y)sin(k uz) (2.162)
where the geometry is shown in Figure 2.16. Note that the field has no dependence
on x, the undulation plane. Thus, no focusing will occur in the undulation plane.
The equations of motion are directly obtained from the Lorentz force law (Equation
2.5):
d 2x eB0
2 ≅ − cosh( ku y) cos( k uz) , and (2.163)
dz γmc2
d 2y eB0 dx
2 ≅− sinh(k uy ) sin( ku z) . (2.164)
dz γmc 2 dz
The equations of motion can be simplified by expanding the hyperbolic cosine
term to second order,
ku2 y2
cosh( ku y) ≅ 1 + , (2.165)
2
to yield
dx eB0  k u2 y 2 
≅ 1 +  sin ( ku z) , (2.166)
dz γmc2 ku  2 
and to lowest order in y,

2
d 2y  eB0  1
2 ≅−   y, (2.167)
dz  γmc 2  2
where the y equation has been averaged over an undulator period using
λu
1 1
∫ sin ( k z) = 2 .
2
(2.168)
λu u
0
93
Equation 2.167 is commonly written as
d 2y
≅− kβ2 y y (2.169)
dz 2
where
eB0
kβy ≡ (2.170)
2γmc 2
is known as the betatron–focusing wavenumber. We may write
1 γλu
βn = = . (2.171)
k βn 2πau
Notice that the y motion is a simple harmonic oscillator (within our approximation).
The restoring force of the oscillator — the magnetic field — is responsible for the
focusing. The focusing that occurs in one plane in a planar undulator (or both
planes in a helical undulator) is called natural focusing. Natural focusing has
some significant features:
♦ In a planar undulator, where natural focusing is only in one

plane, the electron beam is asymmetric and must be “ballistically”
focused in the undulation plane. In fact, a small defocusing
sextupole component may be present due to a finite pole tip
dimension.
♦ Natural focusing can be made equal in both axes of a planar

undulator by proper shaping of the pole faces (see Appendix
8.4.1).
♦ Natural focusing preserves a constant (over an undulator period)

average longitudinal velocity.
The variation of the longitudinal velocity, due to modulation of the
transverse velocity, is a concern because detrapping of the electrons could occur.
A calculation of the effective difference in energy (due to a commensurate change
in longitudinal velocity) through a focusing section, and a comparison of this
94
quantity to the ponderomotive “bucket height” (the maximum energy deviation
of the trapped electrons) could be performed for any case of interest, in order to
determine whether or not detrapping would be a problem. As we show below,
natural focusing does not suffer from the longitudinal velocity modulation, and
hence detrapping is not a concern.
The variation of the electron phase can provide a useful gauge of the
extent of detrapping. This variation is similar to an effective energy spread. The
maximum phase change, ∆ψ, can be estimated as
kr
2 ∫
∆ψ ≈ ∆ β⊥2 dz , (2.172)
where β⊥ is the transverse electron velocity (normalized to c). The phase change
should be negligible, ∆ψ << 2π , to minimize deleterious effects on the FEL action.
For natural focusing,
1 β ⊥2
β|| ≡ β z ≅ 1 − − , and (2.173)
2γ 2 2
eB0  ku2 y2  dy
β⊥ ≅ xˆ  1 +  sin( ku z) + yˆ (2.174)
γmc ku  2 
2
dz
where the approximations used previously are employed here. We can expand
the transverse velocity amplitude by using the fact that
(
y = yβ cos kβy z +φ y , ) (2.175)
where φy is an arbitrary phase. Then
[ )]
2
(
 eB0 
β⊥ =   1 + k u yβ cos kβ y z +φ y sin ( ku z)
2 2 2 2 2
 γmc ku 
2
(2.176)
β
2
βy
2
(
+y k sin kβ y z + φy .
2
)
95
We can simplify the above equation by averaging over an undulator period and
applying the definition of Equation 2.170 to give

2
 eB0 
β 2
⊥ =

2 (2 2
)
 1 + ku yβ . (2.177)
2γmc k u
Thus, we arrive at the important conclusion that the transverse velocity, and
hence the longitudinal velocity, is not modulated by the (betatron motion of)
natural focusing. And, as Equation 2.172 indicates, the phase variation is zero,
∆β = 0 , since β⊥ is a constant.
As we examine in Section 3.3.3, natural focusing in planar undulators
imposes constraints on the beam and beam tolerances injected into the FEL. As a
final note, we should also consider the effects of focusing on the start-up process.
2.6.3: Focusing and SASE
While it is clear that external focusing can influence the FEL start-up process,
the details have not been worked out. One might assume that stronger focusing
might produce a better coupling between the electron beam the field of the
radiation. On the other hand, the spontaneous radiation diverges due to the
stronger focus. In addition, the effective FEL bandwidth and angular acceptance
is large near the beginning of the undulator. A careful analysis of the interplay
between focusing and start-up is clearly needed. We defer such work to the
future. One thing will be made clear from simulation: the FEL amplification
process appears to be insensitive to the focus position (see Section 3.3.3).
96
2.7: CHAPTER SUMMARY
We have briefly reviewed the theory behind the high–gain FEL. Some
relevant radiation equations for spontaneous emission in undulators have been
presented. The models used were simplified, one–dimensional treatments which
ignored numerous effects. As such, various limits and assumptions were discussed
including the consequences of the simplifications. Some of the results presented
in this chapter will be used in the following chapters to obtain specific solutions
for the PBPL FEL.
As was discussed throughout the chapter, bunching is central to FEL
operation. In light of this, a theoretical analysis of a bunching diagnostic was
given. The diagnostic provides a means of directly measuring the microbunching
of the electron beam by devices such as free electron lasers.
In addition to the basic FEL theory and the bunching diagnostic, the effects
of focusing were considered. While not central to this work, some important
conclusions can be drawn about focusing in FELs. Future FEL devices will rely
on very strong (emittance limited) focusing. In light of this, more work is required
on this subject. Certainly, field–shaping alternatives need to be explored. Further
work is also needed to examine the effects of AG–sextupole focusing on FELs
with various operating parameters. A more extensive comparison of both
quadrupole and sextupole FEL focusing can help establish their relative merits.
A consistent theory of FEL focusing, including betatron oscillations and beam
size variations, is also lacking.
97
Chapter 3
Numerical Simulations
and Analytical
Predictions
Having established a framework for evaluating the performance of high–gain

free electron lasers in Chapter 2, we turn to examining the effect of specific
parameters. We begin with analytic results, but as was previously noted, the
analytic tools available to us have limited applicability, and, so, numerical models
are ultimately employed.
Chapter Contents
3.1: Analytic Results................................................................................99
3.2: Need for, and Capabilities of, Numerical Tools........................103
3.3: Time–Independent Simulations...................................................107
3.4: Time Dependent Simulations.......................................................135
3.5: Chapter Summary..........................................................................143
98
3.1: ANALYTIC RESULTS
Relying on the equations of Chapter 2, we can develop a table of relevant
FEL parameters for the PBPL system. Table 3.1 provides a summary of the nominal
PBPL FEL parameters (refer to Chapter 4 for general beamline information,
Chapter 5 for beam diagnostic details, and Chapter 6 for undulator and infrared
diagnostic descriptions).
Table 3.1: The nominal parameters of the PBPL FEL.
Parameter Value
Beam energy Eb ~ 16 MeV
Beam peak current I ~ 200 A
Beam emittance (normalized, rms) ε n 5 mm-mrad
Pulse Length σ z ~ 5 ps
Beam longitudinal brightness B L 926 A
Undulator Parameter a u 1.0
Undulator Period λ u 1.5 cm
Undulator gap g ~ 5 mm
Undulator Peak Field B u ~ 7.5 kGauss
We begin with the start–up level (spontaneous emission) of the FEL.
99
3.1.1: Start–up
The spontaneous emission produced by the beam can be calculated in a
number of ways. As was shown in Section 2.3.1, simple equations are available
for estimating undulator radiation. For instance, Equation 2.110 gives an
approximation of the total spontaneous power from an undulator. Applying the
equation to PBPL parameters yields 110 watts for the entire undulator length and
over all frequencies and angles. We can also calculate the photon flux using
Equation 2.109 to yield ≈ 7.7 × 10 25 [photons/sec/mrad/(0.1% bandwidth)]. The
photon–distribution per pulse is then ≈ 3.9 × 1014 [photons/mrad/(0.1%
bandwidth)]. We can take these estimates further by multiplying the photon flux
by the fractional FEL bandwidth (Equation 2.71) and angular acceptance (Equation
2.75):
∆ω 8ρ 3/2  a2u  −4
θca =  1+  ≈ 6.6 × 10 [% bandwidth - rad]. (3.1)
ω γR  2
Then, the number of photons within the FEL bandwidth and angular acceptance
is ≈ 1.4 × 108 (this can also be obtained from Equation 2.113). Finally, we need to
convert from the total undulator output, to the output within a gain length.
Multiplying the previous result by the ratio of the gain length to the undulator
length (0.07/0.6≈0.12) yields ≈ 1.6 × 107 .
The previous estimate is too liberal, however, since the spontaneous emission
is not a constant over the FEL bandwidth and coherence angle. Thus, we turn to
numerical methods to calculate the effective start-up level of the FEL. We use the
“full” equations for the electron trajectory and ensuing radiation emission. The
model has been refined to account for the variation of the acceptance angle and
100
bandwidth as a function of distance down the undulator (see Appendix 8.1 and
Figure 2.14). The results of both the numerical and analytical calculations are
summarized in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: A summary of the spontaneous emission from the PBPL FEL calculated
both numerically and analytically.
Emission
Numerical Analytic
(over one gain length)
Total 8 x 109 4.4 x 1010
Within FEL bandwidth and angle 8 x 105 1.6 x107
3.1.2: 1D FEL Model
Before employing the one dimensional model (see Section 2.2.3), we check
the validity of applying the model to the PBPL FEL. The tests for being in the
one–dimensional limit of FEL operation were presented in Section 2.3.2. Here the
limits are represented as ratios in order to evaluate the extent of relevance (see
Table 3.3).
Table 3.3: Evaluation of tests for the 1D limit for the PBPL FEL.
Ratio Relation Value

k1 ρ/σ E 2
k2 4πε n /(γ λ r) 0.18
k3 β4πρ/λ u 1.7
101
The one–dimensional limit requires that the electron beam and optical
mode overlap well, energy–spread effects be small, and diffraction of the optical
mode be negligible. These conditions are only partially met by the PBPL system.
Thus, comparison of the 1D results to 3D analytic or numerical models is not
beneficial, especially at lower beam currents or higher emittances.
The one–dimensional model, nevertheless, serves as a useful guideline for
FEL performance. While the 1D model does not accurately model the PBPL system,
it gives a simple analytic result which can serve as a relative measure. It is also
needed for evaluating the 3D analytic model. Table 3.4 lists the results supplied
by the model.
Table 3.4: Results using the one–dimensional model on the PBPL FEL.
Quantity Value
FEL Parameter ρ 1.8 x 10-2
Gain Length Lg 7.8 cm
Saturated Power 11 MW
Natural Betafunction β n 11 cm
Total gain after 60 cm < 1000
We now turn to the 3D analytic model to further evaluate the FEL’s base–line
performance.
102
3.1.3: 3D FEL Model
The three–dimensional model includes diffraction of the optical beam,
emittance effects and focusing [142]. By accounting for three–dimensional effects
it is possible to obtain more realistic performance estimates than the 1D model
affords. Table 3.5 summarizes the results given by the 3D model (see Appendix
8.2). Note the reduced gain predicted by the 3D model over the 1D result.
Table 3.5: Results using the three–dimensional model on the PBPL FEL.
Quantity Value
FEL Parameter ρ 1.8 x 10-2
Gain Length Lg 9.2 cm
Saturated Power 11 MW
Natural Betafunction 11 cm
Total gain after 60 cm ~ 700
We can combine the ease of use and calculating speed of the 3D analytic
model with the accuracy of numerical tools to obtain a more complete analysis of
the PBPL FEL.
3.2: NEED FOR, AND CAPABILITIES OF, NUMERICAL TOOLS
Analytic models, even the complex three–dimensional theories, make a
large number of assumptions. Typically, these assumptions are reasonable for
past and present operating FELs. In fact, the assumptions are often the same
103
criterion necessary for effective operation of an FEL. Still, when considering FEL
designs outside experimental experience, it is desirable to make the fewest
conjectures in the representation. It is also often necessary to model distributions
in parameters, such as current, which are not amenable to analytic methods.
Numerical tools free the researcher from the limitations of the previously described
analytic models.
A numerical code can solve the “full” FEL equations (see Equations 3.2-3.6
on Page 110) to arbitrary precision, and include realistic parameter distributions
[159]. Numerical codes are available for 1D, 2D, and 3D geometries. Some codes
include time dependent, or multi–frequency, effects. Many codes model multiple
harmonics and optical modes. Conditions such as waveguides or gas–filled beam
pipes have also been modeled. A few codes attempt to model the spontaneous
emission statistics found at start–up. Mature codes have included features such
as external focusing and undulator errors. However, computation time quickly
rises when more realistic models are employed. Hence, many users utilize a set
of rapid development tools to distill an FEL design. Once arriving near a desirable
operating regime, a more complete code is used to optimize and carefully model
the final design (see Figure 3.1).
104
Analyic Formulas,
Scaling laws…
Simple codes,
3D
Semi-Analytic
Yes Slippage? No
Linewidth?
Startup?
1D w/ Slippage
3D Single Freq.
2D w/Diffraction NO
Good
Results?
YES
Experiment
Figure 3.1: Flowchart of author’s method of analyzing an FEL by using a

combination of analytic formulas and numerical models.
105
In the high–gain regime, few codes have been benchmarked since little
experimental data exists (except at long wavelengths). At longer wavelengths,
such as microwaves, a number of experiments have been performed and modeled
with simulations [28, 160]. Most of these comparisons indicate that simulations
model experiments well. However, the start–up regime is still not well modeled
(see Table 3.6). While the results of these comparisons are encouraging, the issues
covered by long wavelength codes are not identical to the issues of relevance to
short wavelength FELs. For instance, waveguides are employed in most microwave
FELs [138, 161], but are uncommon in shorter wavelength devices. A number of
concepts have not been tested experimentally at any wavelength [87]: quadrupole
or other alternating gradient focusing, high–gain amplification using beams with
complicated current profiles as would be produced by magnetic compression,
etc..
Table 3.6: Comparison of effective input noise power with experiments performed
at LLNL. The FEL parameter ρ is indicated for each device.
λs Ib ρ Predicted Measured
FEL Name ε
(ƒ) [kA] x 102 Noise [mW] Noise [mW]
8 mm
ELF 1 5.0 1.0 0.4 1.5
(35 GHz)
3 mm
ELF 1 3.5 1.4 0.5 30
(94 GHz)
2 mm
ELF 1 2.8 2.5 0.4 175
(140 GHz)
10.6 µm
PALADIN 1 0.8 1.5 40 ?
(30 THz)
1.2 mm
IMP 3 4.0 0.8 5.3 ?
(250 GHz)
106
Without experimental work, we have to rely on theory, approximations
and numerical models to predict the performance of free electron lasers, including
the PBPL FEL. The basic questions we wish to address in the following sections
can be listed:
♦ What issues in FEL physics can the PBPL experiment address?
♦ How can the information from the experiment be analyzed?
♦ What will experimental limitations do to our ability to understand

the information?
3.3: TIME–INDEPENDENT SIMULATIONS
Time–independent simulations neglect effects such as slippage and
longitudinal profiles of the optical pulse. Time–independence refers to the fact
that such codes neglect the finite length of the beam. Nevertheless, single
wavelength codes often yield more useful results than time dependent,
multi–frequency codes, because of the relative complexity associated with the
latter.
Analyzing the PBPL FEL can be broken down into studying the sensitivity
of the FEL performance to individual input parameters. By varying the beam
parameters about the nominal design value, it is possible to study the tolerance
needed on a given parameter. This parameter variation is not a moot point; a
great deal of experimental effort needs to be expended to stabilize or improve a
given beam parameter. Before investing the effort, it is desirable to know what
the fruits of the labor are likely to be. In practice, it is often not possible to
107
improve a given parameter. It is still important to know the sensitivity of the FEL
to the parameter in question in order to operate the device. Consider an example:
in an RF photocathode gun, as in most injectors, there is a trade–off between
beam current and emittance [92]. Knowing where to operate the injector depends
on knowledge of the FEL, as can be obtained by simulation.
Many computer simulations have been written to solve the FEL equations.
A smaller number of these simulations have grown into well–tested, thorough
codes. However, few programs have been made widely available. Some of the
simulations were limited in distribution due to perceived national security threats
(see Section 1.1). Other codes failed to become available because the authors did
not have the time or funding to distribute or support the program properly.
Fortunately, TDA3D [114] was written with the intent of enabling others to have
access to an FEL code. Over the years the code has been modified, expanded and
tested by many investigators, but it has always remained publicly available. So,
while the physics it models is similar to that modeled by a number of codes, its
impact on the FEL community has been profound. A number of versions of TDA
have been written [162-165]. Versions have been created to handle oscillators,
waveguides, etc.. The comments here will refer to the official version still being
distributed by J. Wurtele, one of the original authors.
3.3.1: Numerics of TDA3D
TDA3D is a steady–state (i.e., time independent or single frequency)
amplifier code which assumes an input field. The time independence indicates
108
that the code does not account for bunch length effects such as slippage. The
user–specified input field is assumed to be coherent and at the frequency at
which the simulation is calculating the interaction. Being an amplifier code, it
only accounts for a single pass of the electron/radiation interaction; however, the
electron beam data can be stored and fed back into another undulator section, as
in an optical klystron. The code follows the electron beam and optical field evolution
through a user–specified length of undulator. A paraxial wave equation is used
to compute the radiation (optical) field in a self consistent manner (refer to Equations
3.2-3.6 on Page 110). The electron–beam motion takes into account longitudinal
(phase) bunching and transverse betatron motion. The program accounts for
optical diffraction and modes, electron–beam emittance, energy spread and other
three–dimensional effects. It is capable of modeling various focusing channels,
including discrete quadrupoles [166]. The code can also calculate the bunching of
the beam on arbitrary harmonics. Space charge can also be included at the users’
discretion. However, the equations of motion are averaged over an undulator
period, so the “wiggle” motion is not simulated.
Various numerical diagnostics are available during the propagation through
the undulator and at the end of the run [167]. Users can have the various beam
parameters monitored and plotted as functions of beam radius and position along
the undulator. Diagnostics that are difficult to access experimentally are easily
available in the code. Bunching, optical mode size, electron beam energy
distribution and phase space distributions are readily accessed.
109
TDA3D has a simple input and output structure (see Figure 3.2). An input
file is used to pass values to the code. The code then generates a text output file
and/or a graphics metafile.
Text Output
File
TDA3D
User Input File
Code
Graphics
Metafile
Figure 3.2: The input/output structure of TDA3D.
The main code handles the preprocessing, numerics and post processing.
The configuration of TDA3D has obvious disadvantages from the programmer’s
perspective. The code is not modular, and hence difficult to modify. It is also not
possible to post–process output data after the original run. Hence, if a user wishes
to generate new types of plots or diagnostics from old data, it must be done
manually. On the other hand, the code is very simple, conforms to FORTRAN77,
and requires only one support file (the common blocks). TDA3D solves the
following equations:
dγ n ω aa
=− r r u sinθ n + Ez , (3.2)
dz 2c γ n
dθ n 2π 1+ p⊥ + au2 + 2ar au cosθn
= −ω r , (3.3)
dz λu 2cγ 2n
dp⊥ 1 ∂au2
=− + Focusing , (3.4)
dz γ n ∂r⊥
dr⊥ p
=− ⊥ , (3.5)
dz γn
 2π ∂  2 au e−iθ n
+∇ ⊥ a r ∝ I
2
2i , (3.6)
 λr ∂z  γn
110
where Ez is the space charge term, which is calculated from the particle distribution
and the appropriate wave equation, and the Focusing term can be selected from
quadrupole, sextupole or ion channel. A radial mesh is used for the radiation
fields, with asymmetries accommodated for by a modal decomposition. The
equations are integrated in z using the Runge–Kutta method. Further details of
the TDA3D numerics have been covered in other publications.
Next we undertake a study of beam current, size, emittance and energy
spread, using results from TDA3D.
3.3.2: Beam Current
3.3.2.1: Discussion and Nominal Values
The design value for the electron beam current is 200 A, assuming a charge
of 1 nC in a 5 psec pulse. Measuring the current or the pulse length is not trivial
(see Chapter 5). Measuring the charge is straightforward (see Sections 5.2 and
5.3). So, for the purposes of the beam current simulations, it is useful to think of
the charge changing and the pulse length remaining fixed. In reality, the
longitudinal space charge will tend to lengthen the pulse with increased current.
The lower the charge, the smaller this effect. While obtaining a relation for the
pulse length is difficult due to the dynamic nature of the space–charge force, we
can readily obtain an estimate for the severity of the longitudinal space–charge
pulse–lengthening effect. We require that the image–charge force on the beam be
smaller than the applied RF force:
111
2N bremc 2
< qE RF sinφ RF , (3.7)
σ 2r
where ERF and φRF are the applied RF electric field and phase, respectively. In
laboratory units we may write
Nb
2.8 ×10 − 15[MeV − m] 2 < ( qERF )[MeV/m]sinφ RF . (3.8)
(σ r [m])
A typical applied force in the PBPL gun is ~70 MeV/m, while for 1 nC the
image force is ~ 20 MeV/m (for an initial beam size of ~ 1 mm). Thus, for ~1 nC
beam charge, the longitudinal space–charge is not a big effect. In fact, it can be
shown that the RF phase–focusing in the gun roughly balances the space–charge
lengthening at 1 nC. At higher beam–charges pulse–lengthening is expected,
while at lower beam–charges pulse compression may occur.
There is another reason to study the effect of the beam current on FEL
operation. The beam current serves as a useful “knob” to measure the FEL operation.
Varying the current is analogous to varying the length of the undulator that the
beam traverses. The latter is often difficult to accomplish with compact (narrow
gap), permanent–magnet undulators, while varying the beam current is
straightforward with an RF photocathode gun. Varying the beam current and
observing the FEL output allows one to study the scaling of the FEL performance
and compare it with theory (see Section 2.2).
Finally, when the beam current is low, the FEL action is greatly suppressed.
Suppressing the FEL amplification allows for observation of the spontaneous
emission. One can then measure the gradual transition between the two regimes:
spontaneous emission and amplification. The spontaneous emission scales linearly
112
with current, while the amplified emission scales exponentially with current. The
transition from linear to exponential signal growth provides strong evidence of
FEL amplification and gives insight into how SASE works (see Section 2.3).
1400
1200
1000
Power Gain
800
600
400
200
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Current [Amps]
Figure 3.3: FEL output power gain versus beam current.
Taking the previous discussion into consideration, we will review the
simulations of the FEL performance from low currents (25 A) to currents beyond
the expected system performance (300 A). Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4 are the total
gain and gain length as functions of beam current, respectively. We see that the
numerically computed results compare well with the 3D theory. Note that the 1D
theoretical scaling is not appropriate over the large current range since diffraction
113
and 3D effects become significant. We can obtain a simple relation by performing
a curve fit to the power gain versus current. A power–law fit for the gain results
in the following relation:
G = 9 ×10 −4 I 2.4 [Amp]. (3.9)
30
Numerical Gain Length [cm]

Theoretical Gain Length [cm]
Power Gain Length [cm]
25
20
15
10
5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Current [Amps]
Figure 3.4: FEL gain length versus beam current.
Unfortunately, a change in beam charge not only effects the longitudinal
space charge, it also effects the transverse space charge. And, so the beam
propagation through the beamline is effected (see Section 4.3.3 for a brief
discussion). We can obtain a qualitative estimate of the effect of beam propagation
by using the MacTrace3D [168] simulation (see Section 4.5 for further information).
The optical beam–size scales roughly linearly with the beam current assuming all
other parameters are fixed (see Table 3.7 and Figure 3.5). Of course, the electron
114
beam size at the input to the undulator could be changed as a function of beam
current. In the PBPL experiment, however, the beam current fluctuates
shot–to–shot, not allowing time to correct the beam size [112].
Table 3.7: The electron beam size at the undulator entrance for various values of
the beam current. The results are from MacTrace3D which accounts for space
charge. All magnet settings are assumed fixed at the values optimized for the
nominal 200 A and a beam energy of 17 MeV.
Current [A] αx αy βx [1/m] βy [1/m]
25 0.36 -1.33 0.2 0.18

50 0.48 -1.12 0.25 0.15
100 0.68 -0.72 0.34 0.10
150 0.86 -0.35 0.46 0.08
200 1.00 -0.00 0.60 0.07
250 1.12 0.33 0.77 0.09
300 1.22 0.64 0.96 0.11
As a side note, we can see from Figure 3.6 that the beam current also
effects the size of the optical mode at the exit of the undulator. Gain guiding is
responsible for the beam current dependence of the optical mode. As the (field)
gain length of the FEL approaches the Rayleigh range (because of the increased
beam current), the optical mode size approaches the electron beam size. In simple
terms, the higher the electron beam current, the better the FEL operates. And, the
better the FEL operates, the closer the optical mode will match the electron beam
size because more radiation is being produced than is diffracting away.
115
4 10 -4
x
y
Beam Size [m]
3 10 -4
2 10 -4
1 10 -4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Current [Amps]
Figure 3.5: The beam size at the undulator entrance in the two transverse planes
for various beam currents.
The change in optical–mode size with current has the possible effect of
altering the amount of IR that can be collected (see Chapter 6). Sufficiently large
optics must be used to gather the IR from the expected range of optical mode
sizes. Another solution for gathering all the light is a non–imaging collecting
optics which is discussed in Section 6.2.2.
116
8 10 -4
Optical Half Power Radius [m]

7 10 -4
6 10 -4
5 10 -4
4 10 -4
3 10 -4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Current [Amps]
Figure 3.6: The optical beam size at the exit of the undulator as a function of
electron beam current. The optical beam size is given as the radius which contains
half the optical power.
3.3.2.2: Current Fluctuations
The drive laser intensity (amplitude) fluctuates to a much higher degree
than the laser pulse width (see Section 4.6.1), and over a narrow range of beam
currents we can assume the space charge force is a constant. From Section 4.6.1.2
we find that the typical laser fluctuation is approximately ±15%, so the beam
charge can be expected to fluctuate on this order. Since we are using a steady
117
state simulation, we will assume that only charge fluctuations contribute to the
beam current fluctuations.
For a beam current increase (decrease) of 15% from the nominal 200 A, the
total gain increases (decreases) by 50% (30%). Table 3.8 summarizes the FEL’s
response to beam current changes. The FEL’s large sensitivity is not avoidable,
neither are the laser fluctuations. However, it is possible to select out the data
which falls outside a narrow current (or charge) measurement. Making a data cut
lowers the data collection rate, but is acceptable for the PBPL experiment. However,
it would be difficult to conceive of a user facility operating with such large
fluctuations. The fluctuation problem is ameliorated by operating the FEL to
saturation (for all expected current ranges). Saturation levels tend to be similar
even for large changes in beam current (see Section 3.4.2 for a related effect).
Table 3.8: Effect of beam current fluctuations on FEL performance.
Current Value Total Gain

Nominal 200 300
Fluctuation +(-)15% 50 (30)%
High 230 425
Low 170 190
3.3.2.3: Current Diagnostics Ramifications
Assuming we make a data cut based on a narrow current range which is
much smaller than the fluctuation level, we may be limited by the performance
of the diagnostics. From Section 5.3 we learn that, at PBPL, a non destructive
118
measurement of the current can be performed to a ±6-10% accuracy. We wish to
know if the current diagnostic accuracy is sufficient to predict the FEL performance,
assuming all other parameters are known exactly (and that the FEL performance
is well modeled by our code and theory). Figure 3.7 shows the expected performance
of the FEL including error bars for diagnostic uncertainties.
400
Power Gain
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Current [Amps]
Figure 3.7: Plot of FEL total gain versus beam current including diagnostic
uncertainties (in current). The shaded area shows the uncertainty introduced by
the limited accuracy of the current diagnostic.
We see that at low currents the uncertainty in current readings overwhelms
our ability to make predictions about the FEL performance. Hence, it is critical to
reduce the error in the current measurement diagnostics below the present level
(see Sections 5.2 and 5.3). As the system stands, the FEL can be shown to be in
the exponential regime, but little can be determined about the start–up level. If
119
current measurement errors were reduced to ±1%, then the uncertainty in gain
would be reduced to about ±2.5%. The aforementioned performance is the level
that must be strived for if useful prediction are to be made. Section 6.3 discusses
some means of improving the charge diagnostics.
3.3.3: Electron Beam Size
Here we consider fixing the current at the nominal value (200 A), along
with the rest of the beam parameters, and only varying the transverse beam size.
Injecting the beam into the undulator with an incorrect beam size causes a mismatch
to the natural focusing in the non–wiggle plane (see Section 2.6). Oscillations in
the beam envelope, and hence beam density fluctuations ensue from mismatching.
In the other transverse plane — the wiggle plane — the beam envelope will
“evolve” ballistically (neglecting space charge) and have a lower average density
through the undulator if misfocused. The average beam density is reduced
whenever the beam waist is somewhere other than in the middle of the undulator.
3.3.3.2: Beam Size Fluctuations
The results of varying the beam envelope in the non–wiggle plane indicate
that the FEL is fairly insensitive to this form of mismatch. Mismatches (∆σ) of less
than 10% (measured by the envelope oscillation amplitude to the nominal beam
envelope) cause insignificant changes to the FEL performance. Much larger
120
mismatches will, of course, degrade the FEL performance. We can make a naive
estimate of the mismatch limit by requiring that the error in beam size (∆σ) be
much smaller than the nominal beam size:
2ε nλu
∆σ < σ nat = . (3.10)
2πau
In reality, not only can the beam size (envelope) be mismatched, but so
can the beam divergence (αx and αy ). A divergence mismatch in the non–wiggle
plane can be related to a mismatch in the beam envelope, which causes beam size
oscillations. The extent of allowable divergence, ∆α, is equivalent to a beam

2∆σ
envelope mismatch of . The limit on the allowable divergence can be obtained
σ
from
∆ β ′′ + 4kβ2 ∆β = 0 (3.11)
the perturbed–betafunction equation. A relation for the betafunction can then be
expressed in terms of the equilibrium and perturbed quantities:
( )
β(s) = β eq +∆ βcos 2kβ s +
1
2kβ
(
∆β ′ sin 2kβ s ) (3.12)
where βeq is the equilibrium, or natural, betafunction. The solution requires that
the amplitude of the second and third terms are equal:
∆β ∆β ′ ∆β ′
= = . (3.13)
βeq 2kβ β eq 2
Finally, by using the definition of α, we find
∆β ∆σ
∆α = =2 . (3.14)
β σ
121
As we discussed at the beginning of this section, errors of 10% in the beam
envelope (mismatches) are tolerable. The mismatch tolerance translates to an
acceptable range of ±0.2 in α. In general, the errors in α and β are not correlated.
Beam sizes and divergences in the wiggle plane, which differ from the
ideal, are not seriously detrimental to FEL performance. What performance effect
exists, is caused by a reduction in the average beam density (see Figure 3.8).
σin σout
σ0 σ1
Figure 3.8: Geometry of the ballistic beam trajectory in the non–wiggle plane. The
gray line indicates a beam envelope waist, σ1, which is off center.
We can obtain a simple relation for the average beam density as a function
of the input beam parameters. We begin by assuming that the waist of the beam
(in the wiggle plane) is at the center of the undulator. The betafunction along the
undulator is given by
  s 2
β(s) = β 1+  *  
*
(3.15)
  β  
where β * is the initial (s=0) betafunction. Then, the average beam density along
the undulator is given by
1 Lu Ib εn
J(s) =
Lu ∫
0 γ βn β(s)
ds (3.16)
where the emittance was assumed to be equal in both planes ( ε x = εy = ε ). We can
easily perform the integral in the above relation to obtain
122
Iγ β *  Lu + L2u + β *2 
J(s) = b ln   . (3.17)
Luεn βn  β* 
The above relation is linear in Lu, as expected. The maximum of the averaged
current density can be found from the first derivative of the above relation (see
Appendix 8.6 for details). The result is that the averaged current is maximized
when β * = 0.15Lu . Of course, maximizing the averaged current density also causes
a large variation in the beam size (from entrance to waist). The beam size variation
can cause problems if the aperture of the beampipe is insufficient. Thus, in practice,
the beam size variation is often minimized, rather than optimizing the current
density. For the minimum beam size variation, use of Equation 3.15 gives
Lu
β* = . (3.18)
2
Finally, it is not obvious that optimizing the average current density is ideal for
FEL operation (since the beam density is not a large factor at the start-up process,
but is an issue for bunching). Of course, i n severe cases, where the beam is overly
focused, the optical beam can rapidly diffract away.
3.3.3.3: Ramification of Beam Size Diagnostic Limitations
The beam size can be determined to a precision of ±10% using screens (see
Section 5.4) or perhaps better using beam position monitors (see Section 5.7).
Thus, the magnitude of fluctuations or mismatch which would be detrimental to
FEL operation should be resolvable. In addition, absolute measurements are not
necessary, only relative measurements are required. So, the demands on the
beam size diagnostics are relaxed.
123
In summary, beam size variations should not only be a major factor in the
PBPL FEL performance. The same cannot be said of the emittance variations,
which we examine next.
3.3.4: Emittance Variation
It has been said that the failure of most past FELs can be linked to the
electron beam quality [3]. Usually, it is the emittance which is the source of low
beam quality. The one–dimensional limit on the emittance, for a given wavelength
of operation, places a stringent constraint on short wavelength and low energy
FELs. While there have been methods proposed to alleviate the emittance limit,
none of these methods have been implemented as of yet [169]. In addition, these
emittance conditioning techniques impose their own emittance limits [170].
Regardless, knowing the effect of emittance on FEL performance is paramount
[171].
Emittance causes three–dimensional effects in the FEL and so is not well
accounted for by the one–dimensional theories (see Section 2.2). While the
three–dimensional theories do attempt to account for emittance (see Section 2.4),
only simulations can account for realistic particle–distributions while making a
minimal number of assumptions. Emittance also presents a problem from an
experimental perspective. It is a beam parameter which is not easy to measure
non–destructively and “on–line” (see Section 5.6). In light of this, experiments
124
often rely of non–destructively measuring all the other beam parameters, and
deducing the emittance from previous measurements. Since knowledge of the
beam emittance is approximate, at best, it is necessary to understand the effect it
has on the FEL performance with accuracy.
An example of the three dimensional effects of beam emittance is the
effect on the optical beam size (see Section 3.3.3). A larger emittance causes a
larger optical mode as is shown in Figure 3.9.
5 10 -4
Optical Half Power Radius [m]
4 10 -4
3 10 -4
2 10 -4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Emittance [mm-mrad]
Figure 3.9: The optical beam size as a function of the beam emittance. All other
parameters, including the input electron beam size, were kept constant.
The PBPL nominal normalized RMS transverse emittance is 5 mm–mrad.
Beam measurements indicate emittances over twice as large ( >10 mm–mrad)
125
occur frequently [172]. These larger emittances can be caused by a number of
factors including:
♦ Higher current
♦ Poor launch–phase setting
♦ Cathode contamination
♦ Bad solenoid setting
♦ Poor injection–size into the linac
3000
2500
Power Gain
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Emittance [mm-mrad]
Figure 3.10: Total gain as function of beam emittance (normalized RMS).
It should also be noted that injecting the beam into the linac with too large an
envelope causes the beam to experience higher–harmonic fields which can disturb
the beam (see Section 4.4). In addition, the beam may be over focused (to a cross
126
over) in the linac (due to RF focusing) [126]. Finally, errors in injection phase into
the linac mainly cause problems in the longitudinal emittance by increasing the
correlated energy spread unacceptably.
To account for the above sources of beam “spoilage” we examine the FEL
performance over a wide range of emittance (see Figure 3.10). For an emittance of
10 mm–mrad the total gain over the 60 cm undulator length drops to ~100. The
higher emittance translates into a gain length increase from 7.2 cm to ~ 9 cm (see
Figure 3.11). Beyond 10 mm–mrad the performance degrades to the point that
signal–to–noise issues become significant and experimental measurements become
impractical.
11
Numerical Gain Length [cm]

10 Theoretical Gain Length [cm]
5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Emittance [mm-mrad]
Figure 3.11: Gain length versus normalized RMS beam emittance.
127
3.3.4.2: Emittance Variation Impact
It is useful to have an empirical relation between the gain (and gain length)
and the emittance. A fit to the curve in Figure 3.11 yields that the power gain can
be expressed as
G = 2.8 ×10 3 εn−1.5[mm − mrad] . (3.19)
The above simulation results used the total beam emittance as a measure.
In reality, the emittance that effects FEL performance is more closely related to
the “slice emittance”. Since the TDA3D simulation is not time dependent it is not
possible to evaluate the slice emittance directly. Further, time dependent emittance
measurements have yet to be performed on the PBPL system. Nevertheless, there
is strong evidence that the slice emittance of an RF photocathode gun is much
lower than the total emittance [173]. The ratio of beam current to emittance is
expected to be a constant for operating ranges in the space–charge dominated
regime.
Table 3.9 summarizes the effect of emittance variations on the FEL
performance. We see that over a narrow range, the FEL is not overly sensitive to
the emittance. However, we are unable to resolve variations smaller than 10% in
the emittance (again, see Section 5.6). In principle, the emittances of shots with
the same current and beam sizes should be similar. In practice, such correlations
have yet to be quantified.
128
Table 3.9: Effect of beam emittance variations on FEL performance. Note that the
nominal gain shown here differs slightly from previous results due to minor
difference in the simulation parameters.
Emittance Value Total Gain

Nominal 5 mm–mrad 250
Variation ±10% +16%/-12%
High 5.5 290
Low 4.5 220
3.3.4.3: Emittance Diagnostic Ramifications
The emittance diagnostic allows for a 10% accuracy and resolution around
the nominal value (see Figure 3.12). Improvements to the diagnostic would be
difficult. The limited accuracy in emittance measurements introduces a smaller
uncertainty in the FEL performance than does the limited accuracy of the current
diagnostic. However, the emittance can only be measured destructively. Thus,
the emittance is measured as a function of the other beam characteristic (current,
beam size, etc.), and is assumed to be determined by these parameters. The
validity of this assumption is unknown at this time.
129
1000
800
Power Gain
600
400
200
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Emittance [mm-mrad]
Figure 3.12: Plot of the FEL total gain versus beam emittance including diagnostic
uncertainties. The shaded area indicates the uncertainty introduced by the
emittance diagnostic.
3.3.5: Energy Spread Alteration
The energy spread produced by the PBPL RF gun is small due to the short
pulse length (~ 5° of RF phase). The uncorrelated energy spread expected is
~0.1% after the linac. The correlated energy spread is considerably larger due to
130
wakefields in the linac. Nevertheless, we are mainly concerned with the
uncorrelated energy spread.
3.3.5.2: Variation of Energy Spread
High–gain FEL performance is remarkably insensitive to small energy
spreads. The one–dimensional criterion requiring that the energy spread be smaller
than the FEL parameter appears to be a good measure. TDA3D simulations (as
well as three–dimensional analytic results) indicate that energy spread should
not play a significant factor in the PBPL FEL (see Figure 3.13). The FEL’s lack of
sensitivity to energy spread requires some explanation.
9.5
Theoretical Gain Length [cm]
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Energy Spread [%]
Figure 3.13: Energy spread variation and the total gain of the PBPL FEL. Due to
numerical problems, only the 3D analytic results were obtained.
131
The energy spread we are speaking of here is more correctly referred to as
the uncorrelated energy spread. The uncorrelated energy spread degrades the
FEL gain by de–cohering the phase relation between electrons. The correlated
energy spread, on the other hand, generally only affects the bandwidth of a
high–gain system.
The effects of the uncorrelated energy spread are minor (see Table 3.10).
Table 3.10: The effect of energy spread on FEL performance.
Spread Value Total Gain

Nominal 0.1% 250
Fluctuation ±10% ~ ±1%
High 0.11 248
Low 0.09 252
Finally, the energy spread can also effect the start–up process. However,
energy–spread effects are generally neglected in analytic formulations of the
start–up level.
3.3.5.3: Energy Spread Diagnostic Implications
The energy spread has a minor effect within the range expected from the
PBPL system. Moreover, the energy spread diagnostics are sufficient to resolve
the energy spreads of < 0.1% (see Section 5.5).
132
3.3.6: Undulator Errors
Field distributions which deviate from the ideal can diminish the
performance of an FEL. The nature and extent of the undulator errors required to
cause problems for an FEL is an ongoing area of research [109, 174-176]. Devising
an accurate numerical model is also not straightforward. Consider that most
codes rely on equations of motion which have been averaged over (or neglect)
the undulation. Introducing errors on the scale of an undulator period becomes a
challenge. In codes that do follow the undulation motion, introducing field errors
still posses a problem [177]. The problem arises because there are different types
of undulator errors.
The literature often refers to steering errors and phase errors as two distinct
types of undulator problems [178]. Briefly, steering errors, which introduce an
anomalous dipole kick, are responsible for the beam walking off the axis. Steering
errors are generally considered easy to minimize, by appropriate pairing of the
magnets, and corrected, by introducing steering coils. Phase errors are field
anomalies between pairs of magnets (periods) which cause velocity (or phase)
deviations in the beam. Phase errors are considered detrimental to FEL operation.
The PBPL undulator is not well suited to studying the effects of undulator
errors (see Section 6.1.1). In addition, the PBPL undulator has field errors which
are considerably lower than required for IR operation (see Page 234 in Chapter 6).
As such, we ignore undulator errors for the remainder of this work.
133
3.3.7: Mixed Parameter Variations
It is not obvious that changing two or more beam parameters simultaneously
will effect the FEL operation in a manner which is predicted by changing each of
the beam parameters separately. In fact, a priori we should not expect such linear
superposition to exist. An example will serve to elucidate this point. Changing
the beam size not only effects the FEL gain, but also the optical mode size. If, in
addition, the emittance is changed (from its nominal value) the effect is unclear.
While mixed parameter variations have been simulated already, we defer
such studies until after data is obtained from the FEL. It is impractical to pursue
multi–variable studies without experimental–data available to limit the parameter
space.
3.3.8: Time Independent Study Summary
Table 3.11 summarizes the sensitivity to the beam parameters measurable.
The effect of the current is clearly the most important.
134
Table 3.11: A summary of the effect on the FEL gain for fluctuations in various
beam parameters.
Flucatuation
Spread Effect on Gain
in Parameter
Current ±15% +50%/-30%

Beam Size ±10% Insensitive
Emittance ±10% +16%/-12%

Energy Spread ±10% ~ 1%
3.4: TIME DEPENDENT SIMULATIONS
In the following sections we consider additional effects introduced when
time dependent phenomena are taken into account. The theoretical work on
which the next two sections are based has been presented elsewhere [135]. Part of
the material was presented in a paper by R. Bonifacio, C. Pellegrini, P. Pierini, J.
Rosenzweig and G. Travish [179].
3.4.1: Noise
Understanding start–up and noise is essential for future short wavelength
devices where no sources are available for use as input signals. The details of the
electron distribution are what determine the spontaneous emission produced by
an electron bunch which is traversing an undulator. Photon statistics and the
135
“random” location of the electrons produce an emission spectrum with spikes in
the time and amplitude distribution [180]. These spikes lead to fluctuations in the
start up power that the FEL amplifies. Modeling the emission process generally
requires computational efforts [181]. Nevertheless, it is important to have
substantial analytic tools to guide the numerical modeling. To this end, it is
profitable to define some length scales and associated normalized variables:
♦ As previously mentioned (see Section 2.2.3.5), the FEL parameter,

ρ, can parameterize a number of characteristics such as the power,
gain length and bandwidth.
♦ The gain length Lg = λ u 4 3πρ is the power e–folding length in

the high–gain exponential growth regime (see Equation 2.66).
♦ The cooperation length is given by Lc = λr /4πρ (see Equation

2.96 and the description that follows).
♦ The ratio, R = Lb /(2πLc ), of the electron bunch length to the

cooperation length is a measure of the FEL sensitivity to
fluctuations in the noise: for R~1 the sensitivity is high while for
R>>1 the fluctuations are insignificant. The more wavelengths
that lie within a cooperation length, the more random fluctuations
that are averaged to yield stable parameters.
♦ Ls=N uλ is the slippage length.
♦ The slippage parameter S = Ls /Lb is important for determining

the significance of propagation effects for a given undulator
length. For S~1 the effect of the radiation moving past the electron
beam must be taken into account. Slippage is responsible for the
spiking seen in noise (discussed in this and the next section).
136
Table 3.12: The PBPL IR FEL parameters used in this section. The calculated
cooperation length and slippage parameter are also given. The emittance listed
and used in the simulations is larger than the design figure.
Parameter Value
Emittance (normalized, rms) 10 mm-mrad
Pulse Length (rms, single bunch) 4 ps (Lb=1.2 mm)
FEL Parameter (ρ) 0.007
FEL 1D field gain length (Lg) 17 cm
FEL Cooperation Length (Lc) 0.12 mm
R=Lb /(2πLc) ≈1.6
Ls 0.42 mm
FEL Slippage Parameter (S) ~1/3
The “noise” in the beam can be simulated by making random offsets in an
initially uniform distribution of beam super particles [134]. The statistics of the
random offsets can be controlled to produce the desired amount of initial bunching,
or no bunching at all. Using the code Sarah [182], a 1D FEL code which contains
bunch length and start up noise effects, simulations of the PBPL FEL start–up
were performed. The relevant scale lengths and parameters used in the simulation
are presented in Table 3.12. The code assumes a uniform distribution of particles
equally spaced one radiation wavelength apart. Random offsets are then applied
to the particles. The distribution of the random offsets is controllable by the user.
In the cases presented here, zero initial bunching was used and the offsets were
made to obey Poisson statistics, as would be expected from spontaneous emission.
137
The Sarah code only accounts for one dimension of the beam/radiation interaction,
so emittance and diffraction effects cannot be simulated. Still, it serves as a useful
model to understand the start–up process.
2.0 10 -8
Power [Arbitrary Units]
1.5 10 -8
1.0 10 -8
5.0 10 -9
0.0 10 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Position Along the Bunch in Units of Lc
Figure 3.14: A numerical simulation showing the time dependence of the
spontaneous start up noise generated by a beam with PBPL–like parameters near
the entrance of the undulator (after 2 gain lengths).
In Figure 3.14, we see that the initial radiation pulse has many fluctuations
and spikes. After the FEL interaction is allowed to occur for a number of gain
lengths, the radiation pulse smooths and contains fewer fluctuations (see
Figure 3.15). In fact, theory predicts and simulations confirm that no more than R
spikes along the pulse are found (after a number of gain lengths). And, indeed,
there are only two spikes evident in Figure 3.15, and R~2 for the case shown.
138
1.2 10 -4
1.0 10 -4
Power [Arbitrary Units]
8.0 10 -5
6.0 10 -5
4.0 10 -5
2.0 10 -5
0.0 10 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Position Along Bunch in Units of Lc
Figure 3.15: The same plot as in Figure 3.14, but well within the exponential
regime (after ~ 8 gain lengths).
The process of start–up from noise is profoundly effected by the smoothing
process exhibited in an FEL. The cooperation length describes the physical scale
over which details of the radiation distribution are not germane. However, the
start–up distribution (at least in our model) yields fluctuations on scale lengths
larger than the cooperation length. The fluctuations remain because there are few
(10) cooperation lengths within the beam. It is these large scale fluctuations which
determine the effective start–up power. By running the Sarah simulation several
times with identical parameters, save for the random number generator seed, it is
possible to get an idea of the effect of the distribution of FEL performance.
139
Figure 3.16 displays the scaled power along the undulator for several simulations
each with different random particle distributions.
1.2
1.0
E L = P avg/ ρP beam
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Z/L g
Figure 3.16: Simulations showing the scaled power (EL = Pavg ρPbeam ) as a function
of the scaled distance ( z ≡ z/L g ) along the undulator. Note the fluctuations in
both the gain length (distance to saturation) and the saturation level.
While it may not be surprising that the beam noise leads to fluctuations in
the gain length, it is interesting that the saturation level also changes. The effect
on saturation is due to fluctuations in the effective beam density, where ρ remains
constant. The number of electrons in a cooperation length varies from shot to
shot. It is primarily these electrons, and not the entire beam, which contribute to
the FEL action, when the beam is longer than a single cooperation length.
140
Using Sarah to quantify the absolute level of fluctuations expected in the
experiment in not reasonable. A two or three dimensional time dependent code
would be required for accurate modeling. If the fluctuations in the noise level are
as high as predicted by Sarah, this effect should be easy to identify. However, it
may prove difficult to distinguish inherent fluctuations in the FEL output from
ones due to changes in the input beam.
Rather than going into further detail on the noise, we move on to a examining
slippage, which is closely related to time dependent noise effects.
3.4.2: Slippage
In addition to noise fluctuations, the trend towards ever shorter beam
bunches also has implications, in the form of slippage effects, for FEL operation.
As the parameters of Table 3.12 indicated, the PBPL high–gain FEL should not
have noticeable slippage effects, but will have significant fluctuations from noise.
In general, the averaged FEL output is dependent on slippage, and it is
possible to separate the effect of slippage from that of the shot noise. Simulating
slippage alone is straightforward: the input radiation level is forced to a fixed
level and the proper boundary conditions for the finite beam length are taken
into account. The result of a 2D simulation performed with the code GINGER
[183] showing the emitted power – averaged over the radiation pulse – along the
undulator is presented in Figure 3.17. Slippage reduces the steady state gain by
141
limiting the FEL feedback mechanism: the electron beam and radiation do not
overlap as much as in the no slip case. The higher the slip, the more radiation
“escapes” the electron bunch.
108
107
106
Power [W]
105
104
Without Slippage
With Slippage
103
102
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
z [m]
Figure 3.17: Two 3D simulations performed with fixed input (radiation) power.
The solid line is for the no slip case (S=0) while the dashed line takes into account
slippage. Note the difference in saturated power levels and the onset of
super–radiance after saturation from the slip case.
Slippage is clearly detrimental to the high–gain FEL action. However, due
to the short length of the PBPL undulator, the effect is small. Of course, if the FEL
were to be extended to saturation, as in Figure 3.17, slippage could not be neglected.
But, with the single undulator of 60 cm, the slippage parameter, and hence the
slippage effect, are both small. Thus, we neglect slippage, while being aware that
the start–up process is still governed by the coherence length.
142
The PBPL sensitivity to beam parameters has been studied extensively.
We have seen that the beam current is both a useful knob for controlling the FEL
action, and a parameter to which the FEL is highly sensitive. Thus, the current is
a parameter which requires careful control and measurement. In fact, the beam
current (charge) diagnostics presently available are inadequate, and require
improvement in their accuracy if useful measurements are to be made. Fortunately,
improvements of the charge diagnostics are straightforward.
The beam emittance is also an important parameter in determining the
FEL performance. Precautions have already been taken to preserve the lowest
emittance possible on the beamline (see Chapter 4). Since emittance is difficult to
control independently of other parameters, it can only be measured not controlled.
PBPL has already implemented an emittance diagnostic suitable for our needs
(see Section 5.6). A complication, however, is the destructive nature of the
diagnostic. A further complication is the fact that the beam current and emittance
produced in the gun are related. These complications are experimental difficulties
that have been and continue to be accounted for through careful characterization
of the system.
This chapter also discussed the effect of the energy spread and beam size
on the FEL; both of which do not pose a serious problem. Finally, we did not
discuss the scaling with energy (wavelength) of operation.
Any FEL experiment relies on careful knowledge of the input beam
parameters to operate and make predictions about the output; the PBPL IR FEL
143
is obviously not an exception. Indeed, the beam is central to the success of the
FEL, and the beam diagnostics are essential for making predictions. With this in
mind we proceed to describe the accelerator, beam diagnostics, and IR diagnostics
in Part II.
144
PART
II
145
Chapter 4
Electron Beam Overview
An overview of the Particle Beam Physics Laboratory (PBPL) is presented. A

description of the beamline and related components is given. Performance
summaries are presented for major beamline components.
Chapter Contents
4.1: The Laboratory ...............................................................................147
4.2: The Beamline...................................................................................149
4.3: The Gun ...........................................................................................150
4.4: The Linac .........................................................................................160
4.5: Transport Line ................................................................................162
4.6: Support Systems.............................................................................168
4.7: Chapter Summary..........................................................................177
146
4.1: THE LABORATORY
Bunker
Klystron
Door
Modulator Experimental Prep Area
Laser Room
Control Room
Figure 4.1: The floor plan of the UCLA Particle Beam Physics Laboratory.
The Particle Beam Physics Laboratory (PBPL) was constructed with the
goal of producing a high brightness electron beam [60, 96]. The design of the
laboratory attempted to account for the needs and requirements of planned
147
experiments. The laboratory was to serve as a proving ground for new accelerator
technology, a home to new experimental concepts, and a training facility for
students interested in pursuing beam physics.
This chapter and the related appendices (see Appendix 8.9) describe the
physical environment, facilities and support as well as the electron beam hardware
deemed necessary to generate a high quality electron beam. The purpose of the
first part of the chapter and Appendices 8.9.1 and 8.9.2 is to establish the strong
influence the environment of the laboratory can have on the technical programs.
Figure 4.1 is a floor plan of the laboratory that will be referred to in subsequent
sections. The laboratory began in late 1990 as three separate rooms in the
subbasement of the UCLA Department of Physics. It has since evolved into an
operating accelerator laboratory.
The components in the laboratory support or are directly connected to the
beamline, and so we first consider the beamline itself.
148
4.2: THE BEAMLINE
Solenoid
140 l/s
Steering Magnet #1
30 l/s Gun Pneumatic Valve
ICT Slits Steering Magnet #2
PS #2 (Emittance Slits)
FC #1 (Pneumatic) Before Linac Pneumatic Valve
30 l/s
After Linac Pneumatic Valve

Steering Magnet #3
PS#3 (After Linac)
FC #2 (Manual)
Quad Doublets (2)

Quads #1-4
PS #4 (After Doublets)
FC #3(Manual) Steering Magnet #4
Dipole #1
PS #5 (Before Triplet)
FC #4
PS #6 20 l/s Steering Magnet #5
(First Beam Dump) Slits
20
l/s
FC #5
Steering Magnet #6
Quad Triplet
Quads #5-7
Steering Magnet #7
PS #7 (After Triplets)
Pulse Length
Monitor
Bellows
Gate Valve
L 20 l/s
E Steering Magnet #8
Quadrupole
G
E
N Steering magnet
D Steering Magnet #9
6-way diagnostic cross
Beam Position Monitor

20
l/s
Figure 4.2: The complete electron beamline for the UCLA Infrared Free Electron
Laser.
149
A beamline serves a number of purposes: provides a vacuum environment
for the beam, allows for control of the beam trajectory and profile, accommodates
beam diagnostics, and furnishes a means of collecting the beam. The definition of
beamline is extended here to include the injector and accelerating structures. The
PBPL beamline was designed to support a large number of diagnostics (see
Chapter 5) while incorporating emittance compensation of the electron beam (see
Section 4.3.3) and short drifts to mitigate space charge problems (see Section 4.5).
It was also built specifically to accommodate the IR FEL.
The following subsections briefly describe major components and
diagnostics in rough order as found along the beamline. Figure 4.2 shows the
entire beamline. We begin with a brief description of the electron gun.
4.3: THE GUN
The gun used to generate the electron beam is a Radio Frequency (RF)
photocathode system. These devices were pioneered by the Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL) [184] and by the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL)
[185]. The gun used by PBPL is a duplication (with minor alterations such as the
addition of 70° laser coupling ports (which are presently not in use) and slight
reshaping of the coupling iris) of a BNL design [186, 187]. The basic concept
behind such devices is to use a laser with a short (~ psec) pulse to produce
photoelectrons from a cathode immersed in a high gradient electric field. The
short pulses, made possible by the laser, produce superior beam quality compared
150
to longer pulses from thermionic cathodes. The high gradient field, produced by
the RF, helps control the beam envelope and emittance blowup caused by the self
fields (space charge) at low energy, by quickly accelerating the beam to relativistic
energies [126]. The combination of short pulses and high gradient fields allows
these guns to produce beams with phase space densities (brightness) orders of
magnitude higher than previous systems.
4.3.1: Gun Design
The PBPL gun, and the BNL design upon which it is based, have been
described in detail elsewhere [48, 62, 188-190]. Here we will only discuss the
gun’s salient features.
The gun (see Figure 4.3) is a one–and–a–half cell RF structure with a
removable cathode plug. The half cell provides for the high field on the cathode
surface, while the full cell accelerates the beam to an energy high enough to
ameliorate the space charge forces. The S–band RF is conveyed through a waveguide
and coupled into the gun through slots in both the full and half cell. The drive
laser pulse is sent along the beamline axis using a mirror in vacuum, and is
incident nearly perpendicular (≈ 2° off axis) to the cathode surface. Some
characteristics of the gun are listed in Table 4.1 [190].
151
70° laser coupling holes
Waveguide
Cathode plug .640 1.280
.848 .824
R.394 R.374
3.271
~0.95
.867
Beam exit
1/2 cell Full cell
Figure 4.3: The PBPL RF photocathode gun shown in cross–section.
Asymmetries in the gun are caused by the RF coupling slots, the vacuum
port and the laser side ports. The effect of such asymmetries has been carefully
studied and steps are being taken to eliminate such effects in future gun designs
[191]. However, simulations indicate that the perturbations to the beam caused
by the asymmetries are not severe for the desired beam parameters (see Section
4.3.4); the beam emittance is space charge dominated, and thus RF effects are
secondary [192].
152
Table 4.1: The PBPL RF photocathode gun parameters.
Parameter Value
Maximum Energy 4.6 MeV
Peak Field Gradient 100 MV/m
Simulated Emittance
5 mm-mrad
Normalized RMS @ 1nC
Peak current @ 1nC 200 A

Q (quality factor) ≈ 12,000
4.3.2: Cathode Considerations
Numerous papers have analyzed cathode materials [193-200]. Present
photocathode RF gun systems use either metal cathodes, such as copper and
magnesium, or alkali and multi–alkali materials, such as cesium–telluride and
cesium–potassium–antimonide. Unfortunately, finding suitable cathode materials
is a tedious task since only RF guns can produce the high fields needed to test
cathodes. Thus, in situ tests are required to evaluate a cathode’s performance.
Enhancement of emission caused by the Schottky effect (whereby the effective
work function is lowered by the applied field) is one effect which is difficult to
simulate outside the gun. An ideal cathode would include a number of
characteristics:
♦ High quantum efficiency
♦ Long lifetime
♦ Relaxed vacuum requirements
153
♦ Simple material or surface preparation
♦ Appropriate work function for available lasers
♦ Capable of operating with high fields
The gun cathode chosen for PBPL was made of standard oxygen free high
conductivity (OFHC) copper (see Figure 4.4). This choice was based on a
compromise between quantum efficiency and durability. Generally, metal
cathodes, such as copper, have less strict vacuum requirements (10-7 to 10-8 Torr
instead of 10-9 to 10-10 Torr), longer lifetimes and easier material preparations than
multi–alkali cathodes. However, copper cathodes have low quantum efficiencies
(10-4-10-5) and high work functions which require high energy (~ 100 µJ/ nC)
laser pulses of short wavelength UV (~ 250 nm for copper). Regardless of these
generalizations, we found that operating a copper cathode was not without serious
problems. The details of the studies are presented elsewhere [201]. Various PBPL
cathodes were plagued by low quantum efficiencies (~10-6 instead of >10 -5) and
nonuniform (spotty) emission [202]. The source of these problems is still under
investigation, but surface contamination is suspected. Emittance measurements
made of the beam with such a cathode show degradation of the beam quality
(see Section 5.6). These cathode problems caused extensive delays in the system
being able to deliver a high–brightness beam.
154
Polished surface
.118
.950
Spring slot
1.238
Mounting threads
Figure 4.4: Design of the PBPL cathode plug. Of note is the wide groove for
housing a helically wound, canted beryllium–copper spring that provides a
superior RF joint with minimal mechanical resistance compared to previous ridged
springs.
Identifying the cathode problems was made easier by projecting a masked
laser pattern onto the cathode, and then imaging the ensuing electron beam onto
a screen (see Section 5.4). Since the laser pattern was known and distinct (an “S”
shape), it was easy to compare it to the electron beam distribution, and to verify
that the emission from the cathode surface was being imaged. When distortions
and spots where observed in the beam spot, it was clear that the cathode emission
was nonuniform. The mask also provided a measure of the size of the emission
spots. Monitoring and understanding the phase space also enabled the cathode
problems to be easily recognized.
The problems with the cathode and contamination are an ongoing area of
research, and some details have been presented elsewhere. Next, we turn to the
means used to minimize the emittance of the gun/linac system.
155
4.3.3: Emittance Compensation
Preserving the emittance of the beam is paramount to free electron laser
operation. In the pursuit of high–brightness electron–beams, space charge rapidly
becomes a limiting factor. At the low beam energies found near a gun’s cathode,
the beam diverges strongly due to the space charge forces. A magnetic field (in
the PBPL case, a solenoid) is typically used to control the beam divergence.
Nevertheless, the beam emittance is diluted by the space charge.
It is possible to compensate for a portion of the space charge growth using
a technique termed emittance compensation (see Figure 4.5 [203]) [204]. By using
the confining magnetic field and a drift space to rotate the phase space, it is
possible to have a position along the beamline where the initial “bow tie”
distribution is “compressed” [205]. Emittance compensation takes advantage of
the correlation between particles’ momentum and position [206]. At, or close to,
this zero crossing of the linear term, an accelerating structure is placed so as to
“freeze” the phase space. The accelerating structure mitigates the space charge
term by raising the beam energy.
In the PBPL system one solenoid magnet provides the guide field at the
gun, while a second solenoid placed behind the cathode bucks the guiding field
producing zero field on the cathode. A nonzero cathode magnetic field results in
the beam being “born” with angular momentum. Emittance growth is caused by
angular momentum being acquired at the exit of the solenoid — conversion of
the canonical to mechanical angular momentum.
156
0.030 0.030
0.020 0.020
0.010 0.010
Px
Px
0.000 0.000
-0.010 -0.010
-0.020 -0.020
-0.030 -0.030
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
x [mm] x [mm]
Figure 4.5: An example of phase space before (left) and after (right) emittance
compensation. Note that the “tails” of the distribution are not compensated.
These plots were generated with a numerical simulation. The case shown here is
actually of the Plane Wave Transformer (PWT) acting as a gun.
Iron yokes increase the solenoid field strength over a short distance, while
limiting the extent of the field: The measured magnet field is shown in Figure 4.6.
2000
1500
B-Field [Gauss]
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance Along Axis [cm]
Figure 4.6: The measured field distribution of the PBPL solenoids. The entrance
and exit of the solenoid yoke are indicated by the dashed and solid vertical lines,
respectively. The measurement axis is arbitrary, and the measurement was ended
at 51 cm for technical reasons.
157
4.3.4: Gun Simulation
Simulations using PARMELA [115] indicate the emittance compensation
is most effective with the accelerator ≈ 70 cm from the gun exit in order to
suppress the emittance oscillations by accelerating to higher energies making
space charge effects much smaller [207]. The short distance necessary between
the gun and linac places a limit on the space that can be occupied by the gun
diagnostics [208]. Typical simulation results for the emittance are shown in
Figure 4.7, while the beam envelope is shown in Figure 4.8 [208].
7
Emittance [mm-mrad]
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
z [cm]
Figure 4.7: PARMELA simulation results showing emittance compensation in the
PBPL system.
158
0.35
0.30
0.25
σx [cm]
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
z [cm]
Figure 4.8: PARMELA results for the beam envelope as a function of distance
from the gun. The case shown here is for the optimal initial beam size (≈ 650 µm)
and a field gradient of ≈100 MV/m. The solenoid field maximum is at ≈ 20 cm.
After the gun are a number of diagnostics, which are covered in detail in
Chapter 5. Briefly, emittance slits, a current transformer, Faraday cup, florescent
screen, and steering magnets are available. Following the diagnostics is the linac
which we examine now.
159
4.4: THE LINAC
The accelerating structure raises the beam energy to a range that is useful
for operation of the FEL. The higher beam energies are also necessary for
space–charge mitigation and the related emittance compensation.
In order to meet the beam energy requirements of the PBPL FEL (> 10
MeV) in a compact system, a novel structure was used. The Plane Wave Transformer
(PWT) Linac was designed to offer higher gradients and lower fabrication costs
than a standard Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) disk loaded structure
[209]. The PWT accomplishes these advantages by using a standing wave multi–cell
structure with a large stored energy. The design and performance figures relevant
to the FEL are reviewed below.
4.4.1: Design
The PWT Linac has gone through three “generations” of design. The first
generation was a vacuum and cold test model. The second and third generations
were operated at high power, with both dark current and photoelectrons. The
present third–generation structure has been improved over past units by adding
internal water chambers and lines, modified disk structures and superior
fabrication methods (see Figure 4.9). In fact, the structure was brazed and assembled
at SLAC using methods similar to those used on their structures.
160
Flange Disks Vacuum Port Flange
water tubes
Tank RF port
Figure 4.9: The Plane Wave Transformer Linac in cross–section. This

third–generation design incorporates internal water temperature control.
The PWT Linac is designed to provide the characteristics shown in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Design parameters of the PWT linac.
Parameter Value
Accelerating Length 42 cm
Peak Field Gradient 60 MV/m
Q (quality factor) ≈ 13,000
A number of parameters which are difficult to measure experimentally
can be assessed through simulations. The effect of the linac fields on the beam
can be modeled using available codes. In this way, the beam’s energy spread,
emittance degradation and size can be modeled including effects such as wakefields
and RF focusing. The detail studies of the PWT linac have been presented by R.
161
Zhang, et al., in publications and a dissertation [210]. For the purposes of this
study, we assume the linac produces the stated acceleration and energy spread.
However, the linac has yet to be fully characterized.
Along with the gun and linac, the beamline is composed of numerous
beam optics and support systems. These beamline components are considered in
the following sections.
4.5: TRANSPORT LINE
Referring to Figure 4.2 we see that the beamline is composed of several
vacuum components and magnetic optics. The vacuum system is designed to
maintain ultra–high vacuum (UHV) in the high power structures (the gun and
linac) and more modest vacuum in the remainder of the beamline (see Appendix
8.9.4). The magnetic optics steer and focus the beam, and facilitate matching into
the dipole spectrometer and the undulator. Additionally, alignment of the entire
beamline is accomplished with a static system composed of optical tables and
linear bearings. The alignment system is covered in Appendix 8.9.3.
4.5.1: Magnetic Optics
Guiding the beam through the evacuated beampipes is the task of the
magnet system. The magnetic optics used on the PBPL beamline consist of the
162
gun solenoids, focusing quadrupoles, bending dipoles and steering coils. In
addition to the magnets themselves, there are power supplies, cabling and control
systems which make up the magnet system. Here we cover the magnets.
The quadrupoles are conventional electromagnets with characteristics given
in Table 4.3 [211]. The multipole content of the magnets was measured indirectly
by fitting a polynomial curve to the excitation plot (field versus offset position): a
rotating coil magnetometer was not available. The multipole content was found
to be minimal (less than 0.01%/cm of the quadrupole field) [212].
Table 4.3: The quadrupole magnet characteristics.
Parameter Value
Outer radius 8.6 cm
Inner bore radius 2 cm
Physical length 6 cm
Effective length 7.7 cm
The beamline has nine quadrupoles arranged in sets. The first group of
four quadrupoles acts to focus the divergent beam exiting the linac. Four magnets
are necessary to produce a reasonable focus in the dipole spectrometer for energy
spread measurements. When the beam is propagating through the undulator,
only three of the four are needed. The next group is made up of three quadrupoles
and is used for matching into the undulator. The final set of two quadrupoles are
used to control the beam spot after the undulator to make transport around the
second dipole possible.
163
Matching the beam into the undulator requires that four beam parameters
be under control at the undulator entrance. In addition to matching the beam
transverse dimensions, the divergences need to be matched to the undulator.
These four degrees of freedom are often expressed in terms of the focusing
betafunctions, β x and βy , and
1 dβx 1 dβ y
αx = − , αy = − . (4.1)
2 dz 2 dz
In principle, matching these four beam parameters only requires four quadrupoles.
In practice, factors such as space charge make it preferable to “over constrain”
the problem. Hence, six quadrupoles are used. Finding suitable quadrupole settings
is usually a matter of operator experience. Still, a starting point can be found
from simulations.
Solving for the beam envelope, including space charge, is a straightforward
numerical problem. An envelope code with space charge effects included
(TRACE3D [168]) is used to iteratively find the quadrupole settings which allow
the beam to be matched at the undulator entrance (see Figure 4.10). The desired
beam parameters and corresponding quadrupole settings are given in Table 4.4.
164
Table 4.4: The beam parameters needed to match into the PBPL undulator and
the corresponding quadrupole settings.
Parameter Value
βx 0.6
βy 0.11
αx 1.0
αy 0.0
Quadrupoles 1-3 -1.3, 2.5, -1.3 T/m
Quadrupoles 5-8 -0.9, 1.5, -0.9 T/m
Figure 4.10: MacTrace3D output for the PBPL beamline set to match into the
undulator.
165
The matching of the beam, and the space–charge force are energy dependent.
Therefore, it is critical to know the beam energy, even when simply trying to
propagate the beam. Two bend (dipole) magnets are used on the beamline to
measure the beam energy, energy spread and to dispose of the beam. The first
dipole acts as a spectrometer: the magnet is used to bend the beam onto a phosphor
screen. Using the simple relation between the momentum of the beam and the
centripetal (Lorentz) force applied by the dipole, the momentum of the beam can
be found:
pc[GeV] = 0.3B[T]ρ[m] (4.2)
where p is the beam momentum, B is the dipole magnetic field and ρ is the beam
trajectory radius of curvature. The energy of the beam, for relativistic cases, is
almost exactly equal to pc (since β≈1). The equation is expressed in common
laboratory units. The term Bρ is often referred to as the magnetic rigidity. This
value as well as other characteristics of the PBPL dipole magnets are listed in
Table 4.5 [213].
Table 4.5: The dipole magnet characteristics.
Parameter Value
Design radius of curvature ≈ 67 cm
Bend angle 45 °
Physical path length ≈ 52 cm
Effective path length ≈ 57 cm
Maximum available field 0.14 T
Average field excitation ≈ 0.014 T/Amp
166
Steering magnets are placed throughout the beamline to correct the beam’s
trajectory and angle. Misalignments in beamline components can be compensated
for by using steering coils (see Table 4.6) [214]. Unfortunately, it is difficult to
compensate for a misalignment between two close–by beamline components since
a drift space is needed for the trajectory correction to have effect. Of equal
importance is the need to have a beam position diagnostic before and after the
steering coil. This is generally not possible between two nearby objects on a
compact beamline. An example of this problems is the linac and first set of
quadrupoles.
The beam exiting the linac is small and divergent. In order to gain control
of the beam, the quadrupoles were placed as close to the accelerator as possible,
while allowing for one diagnostic port. Both the accelerator and quadrupoles
were aligned mechanically using the methods and to tolerances discussed in
Appendix 8.9.3. However, the electric center of the PWT does not correspond to
the mechanical center, and no means could be found to easily establish the relation
between the two centers. On the other hand, the quadrupoles were measured,
and found to have excellent agreement between the magnetic and mechanical
centers. Thus, the beam can be steered to the electric center of the linac or the
magnetic center of the quadrupoles, but not to both. A steering coil is available
between the linac and quadrupoles, however, one steering coil, one diagnostic
and a short drift distance are not sufficient to compensate for such a misalignment.
In retrospect, the linac should have been placed on a translation stage with remote
control. This way an in situ alignment could be done using the beam as the
diagnostic.
167
Table 4.6: The steering coils’ characteristics.
Parameter Value
Clear inner aperture ≈ 6.8 cm
Magnetic field integral 1.4 G-m/Amp
Magnetic field second integral 0.18 G-m2/Amp
Operating current range ±10 Amps
Maximum magnetic field ≈ 130 G
4.6: SUPPORT SYSTEMS
Each component on the beamline requires a number of auxiliary devices
in order to operate. For instance, a beamline magnet may require a power supply,
controller and software. The control system of present accelerators is dominated
by computers, databus crates and self regulating systems (see Appendix 8.9.5).
These technologies have enabled complex systems to be managed with a
modest–size staff [215, 216]. The reduction in required support–personnel has
enabled accelerators to be operated in small scale laboratories such as those
found at universities.
In addition to the control system, two major subsystems are important for
the operation of an RF photocathode gun and the Free Electron Laser experiment.
We now turn to a brief description of these support systems as found on the
PBPL system.
168
4.6.1: Laser
Extracting photoelectrons from a cathode in an RF gun places stringent
requirements on the associated drive laser. The choice of cathode and the desired
bunch structure and repetition rate have direct influence on the required laser
parameters. Ambitious accelerator designs can quickly exceed available laser
hardware. The field of drive lasers for RF photocathode guns has developed
sufficiently to warrant a conference dedicated to the subject.
Before describing the details of the PBPL laser system, we review the
general considerations for drive lasers [113]:
♦ The laser wavelength must be short enough to allow for

photoemission (i.e., the photon energy must exceed the work
function of the cathode).
♦ The laser pulse length must be short compared to an RF period

to limit the electron energy spread.
♦ The laser time structure and repetition rate should match the
desired electron beam time structure.
♦ The laser amplitude and pointing stability needs to be

commensurate with electron charge stability and propagation
conditions.
♦ The laser pulse energy must be sufficient to extract the desired

amount of charge from a given cathode quantum efficiency.
We now consider these issues for the PBPL laser.
169
4.6.1.1: Layout
To Photocathode
KD*P Crystals
4xω 2xω
Photodiode Autocorrelator
Energy Monitor
1/4 Meter
Spectrometer
170
Grating
500 m
Pair
Fiber
Continuum Nd:Glass
Regenerative Amplifier
Coherent Antares YAG
Figure 4.11: The PBPL drive laser with major components labeled.
Oscillator
Fast
Photodiode
The PBPL laser utilizes a commercial Nd:YAG laser oscillator providing
IR pulses at 1.06 µm. A large portion of the light (≈ 30%) is sent through 500 m of
fiber. The resulting pulses are chirped in frequency. One of the pulses is switched
(using Pockels cells) into a regenerative amplifier, where it is amplified to 5 mJ
per pulse (≈ 25 W). This IR pulse is then compressed using a pair of diffraction
gratings. This approach is known as chirped pulse amplification (CPA) and is
well established in the field. The resulting short pulse is then frequency doubled
and finally quadrupled to 266 nm. Figure 4.11 is the layout of the laser system.
4.6.1.2: Design and Performance
At the time the PBPL drive laser was constructed, short pulse UV laser
technology was just emerging. It is thus not surprising that the drive laser is
perhaps the most complex component of the PBPL accelerator. And, as often
follows from complexity, issues of reliability and performance are encountered.
The drive laser satisfies the first three basic requirements outlined in Section 4.6.1
(see Table 4.7). The UV wavelength of 266 nm is equivalent to a photon energy of
≈ 4.66 eV, and this is in excess of the workfunction of 4.5 for a Copper cathode.
The pulse length of ~2 psec is short compared to the RF period of ~ 360 psec, in
fact it is only about two degrees of RF phase. The single pulse per shot and
repetition rate of 5 Hz are matched to the desired electron beam repetition rate.
Higher rates would place costly stipulations on both the laser and RF system.
171
Table 4.7: PBPL drive laser design parameters.
Parameter Value
Wavelength 266 nm
Pulse length (rms) ~ 2 ps
Pulse Repetition Rate 5 Hz
Pulse energy at 266 nm ~ 200 µJ
Nominal cathode spot size ~ 1.5 mm (FWHM)
The remaining two requirements, that the laser be stable and that it deliver
sufficient power, need to be addressed further. The pointing stability can be
evaluated using a number of methods. The results of measurements and casual
observation suggest that the pointing stability of the laser is high enough that it
is not an issue in the electron beam dynamics [217]. On the other hand, the laser
amplitude stability is insufficient for some purposes.
The laser amplitude can most easily, and perhaps best, be quantified using
a calibrated fast photodiode. The photodiode is calibrated using a pyrometer.
Since the amplitude stability over a time scale of minutes can vary depending on
a number of parameters (most of which are not well controlled), it is difficult to
make general conclusions. However, a good “laser tune” will yield short term
(minutes) fluctuations on the order of 15%, while at other times the amplitude
may vary by up to 100% [217]. One general rule is that the longer the laser has
172
been operating continuously, the better the stability. During runs of 24 hours or
greater, the laser has been observed to fluctuate by less that 20% on the minutes
time scale and maintain this for periods that last hours.
The laser system, in addition to providing photons for electron production,
is central to the timing system (reviewed in Appendix 8.9.5.2). The 38.08 MHz
oscillator of the laser system provides the master clock for the entire accelerator
and RF system. We consider the RF system next.
4.6.2: RF
The RF system (misnamed, since it produces Microwaves not Radio
Frequency waves) supplies the power to drive the gun and linac. As described in
Appendix 8.9.5.2, the laser/timing system actually provides the low level source.
The RF system is responsible for amplifying this signal into a high power pulsed
source useful for acceleration. The low level ( ~ mW) signal is first amplified to ~
300 W by a traveling wave tube/solid state amplifier. Then, a klystron driven by
a modulator [218] is used to produce the high power pulses of 2.856 GHz (see
Figure 4.12) [219].
173
Master Trigger
HV Supply Thyratron Driver Low Level RF
Modulator PFN Thyratron Kilowatt Amp
Klystron
RF Out to Waveguide
Figure 4.12: The basic schematic of the RF system.
The output power of the klystron can be controlled by adjusting the input
RF power to the klystron or the high voltage supplied to the modulator. The
microwaves are propagated through evacuated waveguides to the gun and linac
(see Figure 4.13). A power divider is used to send approximately two–thirds of
the power to the linac and the remainder to the gun. High power attenuators at
both the gun and linac are used to adjust the relative power supplied to each
device. A high power phase shifter is also in–line with the linac waveguide to
allow for adjusting the relative phase between the gun and linac. This phase
shifter also serves to compensate the small variable phase shift introduced by the
attenuator.
174
To Gun
Phase Shifter
Gun Attenuator
To Linac
Linac Attenuator
5 dB Splitter
Load
Ion Pump
To Klystron
Figure 4.13: The high–power RF waveguide layout.
4.6.2.1: Attenuators/ Phase shifter
The attenuators and phase shifters are mechanical components in which a
plunger’s position determines the RF characteristics. The plunger is generally
controlled by a motor to allow for remote operation. Calibrating the attenuators
is often done “on–line” using power readings before and after the given device.
However, in a system such as PBPL, where standing waves and reflections can
make measurements difficult, it is often best to rely on low power off–line
calibrations. In addition, off–line measurements of phase are often easier.
Calibrations of the PBPL gun and linac attenuators are given in Figure 4.14,
Figure 4.15.
175
6
Gun RF Attenuator
Y = M0 + M1*x + ... M8*x 8 + M9*x 9
5 M015.1
Gun Attenuation [dB]

M1-0.436
M20.00676
4 M3-5.91e-05
M42.57e-07
M5-4.29e-10
3 R0.999
0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Dial [mV]
Figure 4.14: The gun high power attenuator calibration. Attenuation in dB as a
function of position sensor reading (a variable resistor) is given.
25
20
Linac Attenuation [dB]
Y = M0 + M1*x + ... M8*x 8 + M9*x 9

M04.64
M1-0.0141
15 M2-0.00115
M31.35e-05
M4-5.61e-08
M58.69e-11
10 R0.999
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Dial [mV]
Figure 4.15: The linac high power attenuator calibration. Attenuation in dB as a
function of position sensor reading (a variable resistor) is given.
176
This chapter has presented an overview of the PBPL system including the
gun, linac and beamline components. We discussed how an RF photocathode
gun — driven by a frequency quadrupled and compressed Nd:YAG laser, and a
SLAC XK–5 klystron — is used to provide a high brightness beam for the FEL.
The use of emittance compensation was briefly mentioned as necessary to achieving
the lower emittances desired for FEL operation. The compensation requires the
use of a focusing solenoid and an accelerator placed at a prescribed distance
downstream from the gun. The PBPL accelerator is a novel linac structure called
a Plane Wave Transformer. The gun and linac combined provide a ≈ 15 MeV
beam, sufficient for reaching close to the original design value of 10 µm radiation
from the FEL.
In addition to the gun and linac, the beamline supports beam optics
including, quadrupoles, steering coils, and bend dipoles. The quadrupoles are
used to focus the beam and provide appropriate Twiss parameters for matching
into the FEL undulator. The bend dipoles are used as energy spectrometers as
well as to divert the beam away from the FEL radiation path. As was discussed
and alluded to in this chapter, the beam optics are of sufficient quality (field
uniformity, harmonic content, power supply stability, etc.) for use with the FEL.
This chapter has shown that, with the possible exception of the beam
quality from the gun, the PBPL beamline is well suited for delivering a beam to
the FEL. Two additional caveats regarding the beam must be made. The laser
amplitude fluctuations cause large variations in the beam charge. In turn, the
177
large fluctuations in beam charge cause fluctuations in other beam parameters
due to the space–charge force — the PBPL beam is space–charge dominated.
The PBPL beamline provides for a number of diagnostics in addition to
the beam optics. Beam emittance, charge, position and size can be measured right
after the gun and at a number of locations after the linac. These diagnostics are
described in the next chapter.
178
Chapter 5
Electron Beam
Diagnostics
The following sections describe the diagnostics available on the PBPL beamline.
For each diagnostic, we describe the device, determine the accuracy and bandwidth
of the devices and list some sources of noise and other problems.
Chapter Contents
5.1: Overview and Analysis Methods ................................................180

5.2: Faraday Cup Beam Dumps...........................................................181
5.3: Integrating Current Transformer.................................................185
5.4: Screens .............................................................................................190
5.5: Energy Spectrometer .....................................................................197
5.6: Emittance slits.................................................................................201
5.7: Beam Position Monitors................................................................214
5.8: Coherent Transition Radiation Bunching Foil...........................218
5.9: Chapter Summary..........................................................................223
179
5.1: OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS METHODS
Generating an electron beam is often easier than measuring what has been
produced. Electron beam diagnostics have been developed to the degree that
entire conferences are devoted to the subject. Each new accelerator technology
brings forth the need for specialized, improved or entirely distinct diagnostics.
RF photocathode guns have placed a demand on detector technology that
has required modification of existing methods, and has extended the limits of
signal processing [171]. The short bunches (~ psec) and high density (brightness)
of the beams produced from the new guns require high speed electronics or
innovative methods to resolve the bunch profiles. In addition, the fluctuations
often found in the drive laser generally make it desirable to have bunch–to–bunch
(“single shot”) diagnostics.
The purpose of this chapter is to arrive at an estimate of our ability to
measure beam parameters for the FEL. We proceed by describing each diagnostic
and make performance estimates either from measurements or plausibility
arguments. Since most of the diagnostics have not been well characterized, we
are left with experience and guesswork to guide our attempt at quantizing
performance.
180
In general, the resolution of a diagnostic is determined by the signal
processing electronics (usually an ADC). The diagnostic accuracy is the most
difficult parameter to quantify, but is often determined by background and noise.
For the accuracy estimates, we often rely on adding the sources of error in squares:
Error = Noise 2 + Background 2 + Other 2 . We are generally justified in using the
above rule because the sources of error are rarely correlated. Finally, the signal
magnitude (or calibration factor) is often well known through measurements.
5.2: FARADAY CUP BEAM DUMPS
5.2.1: Description and Purpose
Knowledge of the total charge of a beam is necessary for most applications.
In addition, some other diagnostics require the beam charge for calibration
purposes. Measuring the total beam charge is usually a straightforward matter.
Faraday cups, devices which collect charge, are typical diagnostics used for charge
measurements, and are, by definition, destructive detectors. However, Faraday
cups are reliable, easy to calibrate and operate over a large dynamic range [220].
A Faraday cup can also be used as a beam dump for low to moderate
energy beams (< 100 MeV). In fact, an accurate Faraday cup needs to act like a
beam dump in that it should collect (stop) all the beam charge. For a combination
charge diagnostic and beam dump some desirable attributes can be listed:
181
♦ Good heat dissipation
♦ Efficient electron capture
♦ Low secondary electron emission
♦ Low capacitance
♦ Reasonable physical dimensions, implying use of a material with

a compatible stopping distance
♦ Compatibility with radiation safety
5.2.2: Accuracy and Bandwidth
Carbon Graphite Core

Beam Line Flange Nipple Wire
Delrin Insulator
End Cap
7”
BNC Connector
(hermetically sealed)
Adapter Flange
Figure 5.1: A PBPL Faraday cup/beam dump shown in cross–section. The cup
was machined from graphite and housed in conventional stainless steel vacuum
components.
182
A number of Faraday cup designs have been used on the PBPL beamline
including small aluminum cups on remote actuators, compact graphite cups on
manually inserted mounts and larger fixed cups also used as beam dumps (see
Figure 5.1) [221]. A novel optical mirror and Faraday cup combination was also
produced. A typical result from the beam dump cups is shown in Figure 5.2. The
capacitance of the cup and long cable is approximately 4 nF. The device’s high
capacitance, mainly due to the ~30 meter cable run, limits the sensitivity of the
cup. Charges bellow ~100 pC are too small to be detected from the noise background.
For small charges, the insertable Faraday cups were used as well as the ICT
(described in Section 5.3). Charges from ~100 pC to > 5 nC are readily measurable.
Accuracy of the cups is limited by the measurement of the capacitance, noise on
the signal cable, beam dark current, secondary emission, and electron
backscattering problems. It is difficult to obtain a gauge of the absolute error, but
the cups are linear in response to charge. The linear response of the cups allows
for an accurate, relative measure of the beam charge.
Figure 5.2: A picture of an oscilloscope trace showing the voltage from the Faraday
cup on the vertical scale and time on the horizontal scale. The ringing of the
signal is due to noise. The top trace is an unrelated measurement.
183
5.2.3: Sources of Noise and Problems
Operational experience shows that the Faraday cups are mechanically
rugged and reliable. However, measurements using the cups are hindered by
noise pickup on the signal coax–cable. Amplifiers near the cups, which could
have mitigated the noise problem, were not used for economic reasons. The cups
are also problematic because of their sensitivity to the large beam dark–current:
The beam dark–current at a Faraday cup can exceed 1 nC (depending on the cup
location and the RF and magnet settings). The dark current pedestal limits the
usable bandwidth of the cups when employing ADCs (with no offset). Dark
current also requires taking “background” shots where the gun drive–laser is
blocked (thus eliminating the photoelectrons). Unfortunately, the dark current is
stable only over short times (tens of seconds) due to RF drifts, or perhaps other
problems.
In addition to dark current, secondary–electron emission can also produce
false results for beam energies > 10 MeV. While this is a serious problem, it has
not been carefully addressed on the PBPL system. It is believed that due to the
low–repetition rate and single–shot duty–cycle, the cups do not remain charged
between shots. Thus, secondary emission appears negligible. Our poor
characterization of the Faraday cups secondary emission is partly due to the little
beam time that has been available over 10 MeV. An additional issue not addressed
is the lack of impedance matching of the cups themselves to the signal cables
(and measurement devices). Again, since the PBPL system operates with single
shots, no impedance problems (such as reflected signals) were observed.
184
A summary of the Faraday cup performance is shown in Table 5.1.
Resolution is limited by the ADC/Scope used for digitizing the signal. The
resolution is set by the 11–bit charge sensitive ADC. Accuracy is calculated
assuming a typical noise level of 10 mV (peak–to–peak). The shot noise from a
dark–current signal of ~1 nC and the ±1/2 bit accuracy of the ADC introduce
negligible error. The signal duration is capacitance limited.
Table 5.1: Summary of the Faraday Cup performance.
Parameter Value
Diagnostic Type Charge (Faraday cup)
Useful range 100 pC - > 5 nC
Typical Resolution @ 1 nC 0.5 pC
Accuracy @ 1 nC ±4%
Signal Type Voltage
Signal Magnitude (50 Ω) 0.25 V / nC
Signal Duration (4 nF cup) < 1 µs
5.3: INTEGRATING CURRENT TRANSFORMER
Current transformers (coils, torroids, and pickup loops) have been staple
diagnostics on accelerators. Current transformers offer a reliable means of
185
non–destructively measuring a beam’s current. Measuring short bunches raises
the problem of frequency response and calibration. Recent innovations have
allowed a current transformer to be constructed which integrates over the charge
traversing the coil — an integrating current transformer (ICT) [222]. The time
scale of the integration can be made long enough to allow for signal analysis with
standard electronics. An additional advantage of the ICT for RF photocathode
guns is that the time scale can be made short enough to reject most of the dark
current produced. An integration time ~10-100 ns is a convenient time scale, and
is much shorter than the ~ µsec time scale of the dark current.
Beam
50Ω
Figure 5.3: A schematic diagram of the Integrating Current Transformer showing

the equivalent electrical circuit.
The ICT is constructed of ribbons of Cobalt–Molybdenum alloy interleaved
with Nickel–Iron alloy. The laminated construction minimizes the eddy currents
while limiting the rise and fall times of the output signal. In this way, an integrated
charge signal is produced which is linear and slow enough to process with
conventional electronics (see Figure 5.3). Implementing the ICT requires making
an electrical break in the beamline, and providing a symmetric return path for
186
the wall currents (see Figure 5.4). Finally, the signal produced by the ICT is
processed using a charge–sensitive analog to digital converter (ADC).
ICT
DC Break (Isolator)
Beam
Diagnostic Port
Diagnostic Port
Shield
Figure 5.4: Installation of the ICT on the beamline.
The ICT can detect signals from < 150 pC to > 5 nC with the lower limit
determined by noise. The accuracy of the ICT is primarily determined by the
quality of the calibration. We employed a simple wire placed along the outer
wall of the beampipe and through the ICT (see Figure 5.5). A short (~10 nsec)
current pulse was sent down the wire and the ICT’s response was compared to
the input signal. It should be noted that at pulse lengths below the ICT “response
time” (~80 ns), the ICT’s output was insensitive to the input pulse length. Since
our beam is 2-10 psec (RMS) long, we only measure the peak of the ICT output.
187
Finally, a statistical calibration was used because it was felt that the pulser did
not control the input charge accurately; only a voltage pulser, not a charge injector,
was available for this test. The results are shown in Figure 5.6.
ICT
Wire
Pulser Scope
Figure 5.5: The calibration apparatus for the Integrating Current Transformer.
188
6
Number of Counts 5
0
40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56
Response [mV/nC]
Figure 5.6: A calibration histogram of the ICT. The ICT response to several input
pulses was recorded.
Noise on the ICT signal comes from the signal cable and perhaps flaws in
the ICT shield. The ICT has proven to be reliable and durable. One difficulty
experienced with the ICT is the device’s temperature limit of 80° C which required
caution when baking the nearby vacuum pipes.
PBPL operators rely heavily on the ICT to provide an accurate charge
measurement. A summary of the ICT performance, based on experience at PBPL
and measurements described above, is given in Table 5.2. The resolution estimate
189
is based on the 11–bit high–speed charge–sensitive ADC used (a LeCroy 2249).
Accuracy is limited by noise pickup on the cable, and possibly direct pickup by
the ICT. For estimating purposes, we use a noise level of ±5 mV. It should be
noted that since the ICT signal is ~100 ns long, it is discernible from much of the
noise in the laboratory.
Table 5.2: Summary of ICT performance.
Parameter Value
Diagnostic Type Charge (ICT)
Useful range 150 pC - > 5 nC
Typical Resolution @ 1 nC 0.5 pC
Accuracy ± 10%
Signal Type Voltage
Signal Magnitude ≈ 50 mV / nC
Signal Duration ~ 100 ns
5.4: SCREENS
The need to know where the electron beam is and what is its transverse
distribution are paramount. While many diagnostics have been developed to
meet new needs, the simplicity and reliability of the fluorescent screen is difficult
190
to match. The fluorescent screen, sometimes referred to as a phosphor screen,
relies on the electrons in the beam to cause fluorescence by exciting a material
deposited on a substrate. The light from the screen is then detected or imaged.
The choice of materials depends on the beam energy, number of electrons, and
required resolution. It is usually desired that the material’s emission spectrum
peak in the visible range for ease of detection. The sensitivity of the material is
chosen so that the amount of light produced by the lowest–charge beam to be
used is easily detectable, while the highest–charge beam does not saturate the
material. The resolution of the screen is, in practice, partly determined by the
grain size of the fluorescent material. In addition, we desire the output light to be
linearly proportional to the incident charge.
Top View
Frame
Screen
Mount
Actuator
Mirror
Mount
Pneumatics
Figure 5.7: The PBPL phosphor screen, mount and actuator assembly.
The UCLA phosphor screens utilize a layer of Gd2 O2 S:Tb deposited on a
thin (0.001"), stainless–steel sheet. The material is precipitated out of an aqueous
solution onto the sheet [223]. The screen in held in a frame which, in turn, is
191
mounted on a stand along with a mirror. The entire stand is placed on a pneumatic
actuator which allows for insertion and extraction of the screen from the path of
electrons. A drawing of the device is shown in Figure 5.7.
The screen is imaged using a charge–coupled device (CCD) camera. The
mirror mounted at a 45° angle to the screen serves to relay the image to the
camera without spatial distortion due to depth of field effects. A remote control
iris on the camera serves to control saturation of the camera, thus increasing the
dynamic range. The image from the camera is viewed on monitors and digitized
by the control computer for analysis. The assembly is depicted in Figure 5.8.
CCD Camera
Lens/Iris
Image
Diagnostic Cross
with Screen
Beam
Figure 5.8: The screen diagnostic system including the CCD camera and lens.
192
A single beam spot measurement, including dark current, is shown
Figure 5.9.
Figure 5.9: A typical digitized image from a fluorescent screen. The white spot is
the photocurrent. The three black dots framing the white beam spot are alignment
marks ~ 1 cm apart.
The rise and fall time of the screen fluorescence can easily be measured in
situ. A photo diode is placed near the window of the screen assembly. With the
dark current impinging on the screen, a measurement is made. The resulting
scope trace is shown in Figure 5.10. The rise time is under one microsecond while
the decay time is ~ 5 millisecond. The overall timescale of ~ 6 milliseconds
should be compared to the timescale of photoelectrons, dark current and video
rate. The photoelectron (~ psec) and dark current (~ µsec) are integrated by the
relatively long (~ msec) response time of the fluorescence. However, since the
video frame (field) lasts 33 msec (16 msec), the timing of the video to the fluorescing
is relevant (further discussion of this problem is given in Appendix 8.9.5.4).
193
Figure 5.10: The response time of the PBPL screens measured with a photodiode
and recorded on an oscilloscope.
A novel use of the screens is to measure the beam charge. The screens are
well suited for measuring small charges. It is possible to calibrate the screens
against the ICT (of Section 5.3) or Faraday cups (of Section 5.2). By summing all
the pixels of a digitized screen image, it is possible to estimate the charge of the
beam. The calibration is also useful in verifying the linearity of the phosphor
screens. While the above measurement is interesting and useful, we do not discuss
it further here. Rather, we turn to the limits of the screens for beam spot assessment.
When used to measure the beam size, the screens are limited in accuracy
by a combination of the detector (CCD camera) and optics. While this is not
known for certain, the grain size of the screen material does not seem to be a
limitation. PBPL has not devised a precise test for checking the accuracy of the
screens; however, the present calibration procedure does provide some
information. The screen system is calibrated by focusing the camera/lens (in situ)
onto the screen. The depth of focus, with the aperture fully open, is < 1 mm.
194
Typical distances from the lens end to the screen are ≈ 10 cm. The focused camera
is then swiveled 90° onto a precision alignment target whose concentric–circle
sizes are known. Comparisons are then made of the number of pixels versus the
edge–to–edge distance of the target circles. The CCD camera’s cell size is 10 µm
square. The above information, in combination with discussions with other
researchers utilizing similar systems, leads us to assume an accuracy of ~ 20 µm.
A typical screen can measure beam spot sizes from ~ 100 µm to > 1 cm in
diameter. The lower limit is set by the need to distinguish the beam from noise.
X–rays, from bremstraulung, can cause speckling on the CCD detector. The upper
limit of the beam spot detection is set by the screen size.
The screens have proven themselves under use; however, they are not free
from problems:
♦ X–rays from bremstraulung cause bright (total depletion) spots

on the CCD.
♦ The wide range of charges impinging on the screen requires the

use of a remote–control iris on each camera (since the dynamic
range of the camera/digitizer is insufficient).
♦ The dark–current signal from field emission can overwhelm the

photoelectron signal.
♦ The screen material can flake off the substrate if not prepared
carefully or if subject to mechanical shock.
♦ High temperature bake–outs damage the screens.
195
A summary of typical screen performance is listed in Table 5.3. The
calibration discussed above is used to estimate the accuracy. The resolution is
taken to be a single pixel of the CCD times the nominal calibration factor. The
resolution can be improved by using appropriate optics. The screen used for the
emittance diagnostic is often arranged to provide a 25 µm resolution. Regardless,
we consider the “typical case” here.
Table 5.3: Summary of the screen performance.
Parameter Value
Diagnostic Type Spot Size (Screens)
Useful range 100 µm - >1 cm
Typical Resolution ≈ 40 µm (1 pixel)
Accuracy (@ 200µm) ± 10%
Signal Type Video
Signal Magnitude .04 mm / pixel
Signal Duration ≈ 10 ms
Note that while the screens are useful as a relative beam–position indicator,
they were not calibrated for absolute position–determination.
196
5.5: ENERGY SPECTROMETER
Measuring the energy of a relativistic electron–beam is straightforward, in
general. Employing a bend magnet and screen allow both the energy and energy
spread to be measured without additional calibration. Unfortunately, the above
method is destructive to the beam at PBPL. Nevertheless, other methods suffer
from either complex implementations or difficult calibration.
The PBPL energy spectrometer, uses a dipole bend magnet as described in
Appendix 8.9.5.3 (see Figure 5.11).
Quads #1-4 Dipole #1
Steering Magnet
Screen
Beam Dump
Figure 5.11: The PBPL energy spectrometer showing the beam path through the
quadrupoles, dipole bend and screen diagnostic.
197
5
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 D1 Q5
4
∆γ/γ=0.1%
Beam Size [mm]
∆γ/γ=0
3
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Distance Along Beamline [m]
Figure 5.12: Results of a Transport simulation showing the beam envelope along
the beamline, including quads and the bend dipole. The simulation is ended at
the approximate location of the screen (2.0 m), and the approximate location of
the magnets is indicated at the top of the graph.
The spectrometer can be characterized by the dispersion function, η, where

2
ε β  η∆γ 
σ total = n +  . (5.1)
γ  γ 
We wish to have a large dispersion in order to have good accuracy on the
energy–spread measurements. Simulation performed with Transport [224] indicate
that a dispersion of η≈47 cm is achievable with suitable quadrupole settings. The
simulation is first performed with zero energy spread (dγ/γ=0) in order to find
the emittance contribution term to Equation 5.1 (see Figure 5.12). The minimum
beam size at the screen location is found to be σx ≈180µm. The simulation is
198
repeated for an energy spread of 0.1% (the nominal value), to yield a beam size of
σx≈530 µm. Thus, the dispersion contribution to the beam size is given by
σ η = σ total − σ ε2 ≈ 466µm.
2
(5.2)
The energy spectrometer can readily measure beam energies from ~3 MeV
to > 25 MeV (for beam charges ~ 1 nC). Energy spread can be measured from
~0.01% to ~ 1.0%. The lower limit on the energy spread determination is set by
the resolution of the screens (and the magnet settings); the upper limit is set by
the acceptance of the beamline around the bend.
The size of the beam image on the screen is determined by the beam’s
energy spread and the dispersion relation (as discussed above). Since the screens
have a resolution of ≈ 40 µm (see Section 5.4), the resolution of the spectrometer
is ≈0.1%.
The performance of the energy spectrometer is dependent on the screen
performance (see Section 5.4), and so is limited by the same considerations. In
addition, the field of the bend magnet must be known. In order to obtain the
magnetic field, both a current readback on the dipole power–supply, as well as a
199
Gaussmeter are employed. The energy spectrometer performance, taking the above
comments into account, is summarized in Table 5.4. The resolution of the
spectrometer is limited primarily by the resolution and accuracy of the Gaussmeter,
not the dipole power supply. It should be noted, however, that the absolute
energy measurement is limited by the alignment of the screen to the beamline.
Table 5.4: Summary of Energy spectrometer performance.
Parameter Value Value

Diagnostic Type Energy Energy Spread
Useful range < 25 MeV 0.01 % - 1 %
Typical Resolution 0.01% 0.01 %
Accuracy (relative) ± 10 % ± 0.01 %
Signal Type Video Video
Signal Magnitude - 100 pixels / %
Signal Duration - -
An additional source of error comes from initial offsets in the beam centroid
position or angle. If the beam enters the dipole offset from the ideal position, a
shift in the apparent beam energy is recorded; the same is true of angular errors
at the entrance. Both the position and angle problems can be minimized by
verifying the beam trajectory using the screens or BPMs fore and aft of the
dipole. Here we ignore the contribution of angular and position errors to the
error in the energy measurement.
200
5.6: EMITTANCE SLITS
x′
′ = γε
x max
x i′ = ε β
xi = ε γ
x max = βε
x
x e = −α ε γ
x e′ = −α ε β
βγ − α 2 = 1
ε = γx 2 + 2αxx ′ + βx ′2
Figure 5.13: The emittance ellipse shown with some relevant Twiss parameters.
Accelerator physicists often speak of the six–dimensional (or
6N–dimensional) phase–space occupied by a beam. Two of the dimensions, the
energy and energy spread can be obtained from the diagnostic described in
Section 5.5. Two more dimensions, the transverse beam–sizes, can be obtained
from the screen diagnostic described in Section 5.4 or the BPM diagnostic described
in Section 5.7. The remaining two dimensions, the transverse momenta, require a
201
more elusive measurement. Knowledge of the momenta (in an average sense) is
functionally equivalent to knowledge of the transverse emittance (see Figure 5.13).
The transverse emittance is a critical parameter in FEL operation, and so
we spend considerable effort analyzing the emittance diagnostic in the following
sections.
5.6.1: Emittance Measurement Overview
Measuring the emittance of the beam can be done using indirect methods
[225]. One example of an indirect method is the “quad scan” where the beam size
is varied (scanned) using quadrupoles, and the resulting beam size is recorded.
The quad scan and other similar methods suffer from two main problems:
space–charge–dominated beams yield convoluted results, and repeated
measurements are required.
In contrast, “pepper–pot” techniques do not suffer from space–charge
problems and measurements can be made in a single shot [226]. The basic idea is
to break up the beam transversely into several “beamlets” and measure the
divergence of the individual beamlets (see Figure 5.14). Both one and
two–dimensional designs are possible. For simplicity we only consider the
one–dimensional “slit” design here. Note that while a two–dimensional pepper–pot
would be a straightforward extension of these ideas, the technical aspects of such
a system are more challenging.
202
Beam (really)
Beamlets
Slits Screen
Figure 5.14: A cartoon of a one–dimensional pepper–pot (slit) scheme.
The design of a slit system needs to account for slit width, thickness, separation
and drift length to screen (see Figure 5.15).
Slits Screen
Ld
∆θLd
d
Figure 5.15: The geometry of an emittance slit system along with the relevant
notation.
The slits need to satisfy three basic requirements [227]. The first is that the
beamlet profile at the detector screen must be much larger than the slit aperture:
203
∆θLd >> d . Satisfying the previous requirement assures that the measured
distribution is relatively independent of the slit geometry. The second requirement
is that the angular acceptance of the slits be large: ∆θL << d. A large angular
acceptance aids in beam propagation through the slit diagnostic. Finally, the
third requirement is that the beamlets’ space–charge forces must be small so that
a ballistic trajectory to the screen is maintained.
Once the beam is successfully propagated through the slits and imaged on
a screen, the data can be analyzed on–line or stored for later analysis (see
Figure 5.16).
Figure 5.16: A typical emittance–slit image digitized and stored for off–line analysis.
With the above introduction in mind, we begin an analysis of an emittance
slit measurement system.
204
5.6.2: Design Considerations for the Slits
This section describes the design criteria and physical principles involved
in phase space measurement based on collimating slits. The material is based on
a technical note by J. Rosenzweig and G. Travish [228] and on earlier work by S.
Hartman [172, 192].
There are two main reasons for collimating the high intensity electron
beam with the slits:
1) Separating the beam into many beamlets, whose intensity distribution
at some downstream point can be measured, gives the phase space distribution
of the beam. Each beamlet yields a measure of the width of the transverse
momentum distribution at its respective slit, while the centroid of the beamlets
gives the correlated offset of the momentum distribution at the respective slit.
Emittance, as used here, is given by
2
ε rms ≡ x 2 x′ 2 − xx ′
x
. (5.3)
where x is one transverse dimension and x ′ is the trace–space angle (or particle
divergence). Thus, knowledge of the beamlet centroid and width can be used to
reconstruct the original beam’s emittance.
2) Reducing a high–charge beam to several beamlets with lower charge
mitigates the space–charge forces. Minimizing space–charge influence is of prime
importance for high–brightness beams, such as those produced by
RF–photocathode guns, since space–charge forces dominate for low energies (<
205
10 MeV) and beam sizes of interest. The (RMS) beam envelope equation (in a
drift space) can be used to quantify the extent of space–charge dominance:
εn2
σ x″ =
4I
2 3 + (5.4)
(
γ σ x γ I 0 σ x +σ y
3
)
where I0 = ec re is the Alfvén current, re is the classical electron radius and the
primes ( ′ ) denote differentiation with respect to the longitudinal coordinate, z.
An analogous equation exists for σ y . A measure of the degree of space–charge
dominance over emittance in determining the evolution of the beam envelope is
the ratio of the second to the first terms on the right hand side of the envelope
equation:
2Iσ 02
R0 = , (5.5)
I0γε n2
where we have assumed a round beam, σ x = σ y ≡ σ 0 .
Beam Slits Screen
Figure 5.17: A cartoon of the emittance slit measurement technique.
206
For PBPL parameters (see Table 3.1), the beam is space–charge dominated
(R0 >> 1 ) except near small waists. Thus, linear transport–theory cannot be used
to measure the emittance (e.g., quad scanning). Collimating with slits creates low
current, small σ x beamlets which have the same uncorrelated “temperature” as
the original beam (see Figure 5.17).
The (RMS) size of a uniform beamlet created by a vertical slit of width d is
σ x = d 2 3 . Assuming σ y >> σ x , the space–charge dominance ratio for the beamlets
is given by
2
2 I d
Rb =   . (5.6)
3π γ I0  ε n 
We require that Rb << 1 so that the beamlets are emittance dominated.
The angular acceptance of the slits further impacts on the choice of slit
width and depth. The thickness of the material used must be adequate to either
stop the beam or scatter it sufficiently so that it does not affect the measurement
of the non–intercepted beamlets. The stopping distance of the beam can be
approximated by
E E[MeV]
Ls = dE ≈ 2 -1 -3 , (5.7)
1.5[MeV - cm g ]ρ[g-cm ]
dx
where ρ is the material density (not the FEL parameter) and E is the energy of an
initially minimum–ionizing particle. It is straightforward to stop a low energy
(<5 MeV) beam, but with a > 10 MeV beam, the length of the slits becomes
impractical. Rather than stop the beam, we examine the scattering process. The
beam scatters off of nuclei as it slows down from ionization losses. The final
207
(RMS) angle associated with the beam after propagating a distance L in the
stopping material is approximately
21 Ls  1 
θ sc =  − 1 , (5.8)
E[MeV] Lr  Ls − L 
where Lr is the radiation length of the material (1.4 cm in steel). We require a
multiple–scatter angle of approximately unity (1 radian) or larger.
Using the above criterion allows the thickness of the slits to be fixed. We
now can examine the angular acceptance of the slits. The (RMS) beam angle
associated with the finite beam–emittance, assuming the slits are at a beam waist,
is given by
εn
φ= . (5.9)
γσ 0
The above angle should be much smaller than the half–angle of the slit aperture,
which is d 2L . Having placed limits on the thickness and depth of the slits, we
turn to other slit parameters.
The slit separation w is chosen to be much larger than the slit width d and
smaller than the beam size, to ensure that the beam can be resolved:
d << w < σ0 . (5.10)
The width w must also be consistent with preventing the beamlets from overlapping
at the detecting phosphor, a condition which depends on the distance of the drift
to the phosphor Ld . The ratio to the beamlet separation to their widths is expressed
as
208
Ldφ
Rws = 2 , (5.11)
w
which should be much smaller than unity. The ratio of the beamlet (RMS) size at
the phosphor to the size at the slit,
Ldφ
Rsp = 2 3 , (5.12)
d
should be larger than one to assure resolution of the uncorrelated angular spread
in the beam. The drift length can be optimized by noting that Rws should be small
and Rsp large compared to unity; we can set their geometric average equal to
unity ( Rsp Rws = 1 ). Then,
dw
Ld = 1/4
. (5.13)
3 2φ
The optimum value of Ld is quite broad, so we are free to choose a more convenient
value as long as it is within a factor of two.
Once the drift length is specified, another criterion should be examined for
the diagnostic to give unambiguous results: the residual space–charge forces
between beamlets needs to be small. More precisely, the contribution to the measured
emittance from the residual space–charge forces needs to be small compared to
the contribution due to the true, uncorrelated angular–distribution at the slits.
Utilizing, again, the envelope equation (5.4) we have
Rb ′ =
2I dLd
, (5.14)
γ 2 I 0 wε n
for the ratio of the space charge to emittance terms, and this quantity must be
much smaller than one.
209
The above relations constitute a design optimization procedure for
slit–based emittance diagnostics. While the information for optimizing the slits is
given above, it is useful to summarize the steps (again we assume the geometry
shown in Figure 5.15):
1) Choose a slit width, d, consistent with the requirement that the

beamlet space–charge force be small (Rb<<1).
2) Choose a slit thickness, Ls, sufficient to scatter (or stop) the

intercepted portion of the beam (θsc ~1).
3) Verify that the beam angle, φ, due to the finite emittance, is

much smaller than the half–angle of the slit aperture d/2Ls If
not, begin with step (1) and choose a larger d or smaller Ls.
4) Choose a slit separation, w, which is much larger than the slit

width, d, but smaller than the RMS beam size, σr (σr>w>>d).
5) Chose a drift length (to the screen) which is approximately given

dw
by Ld = 1/4 .
3 2φ
6) Verify that the choices of w and Ld are consistent with not having
the beamlets overlap on the screen (Rws<<1), but still having the
beamlets much larger at the screen than at the slits (Rsp>>1). If
the above conditions are not met, choose a new w or Ld consistent
with steps (4) and (5).
7)
Verify that the inter–beamlet space–charge forces are small (
Rb′ < 1 ). If not, reselect w, Ld or even d.
8) Confirm that the device specified is within machining capabilities.
9) Finally, calculate the expected signal–to–noise ratio, and verify

that it is large (see discussion below).
Slit scattering effects have been ignored thus far; however, the subject has
been treated elsewhere [229, 230]. Here we cite the result that the minimum
signal–to–noise for the detected beam–intensity at the phosphor is given by
210
S 3π dwc
≥ . (5.15)
N 2deff L3/2
eff
where
2
 21⋅ d 
Leff = Lr   , (5.16)
 E[MeV]⋅ 2L 
and
3/2
2 Leff
deff = (5.17)
3π wc
with
2
A  E  1
w = 2
2
 2 (5.18)
Z πNA ρ  2e  ln(181⋅ Z1/3 )
c
where NA is Avogadro’s number and ρ is again the material density (not the FEL
parameter). Note that misalignment of the slits can generate large slit–scattering
effects, and thus care must be taken to avoid alignment errors.
Table 5.5: Final emittance slits measurement system design parameters.
Parameter Value
Beam initial size σ 0 1.5 mm
Slit width d 50 µm
Slit separation w 750 µm
Slit depth L 5 mm
15 cm for low energy

Drift distance Ld
70 cm for high energy
211
Having assembled a set of criterion by which to design the slit system, we
are able to choose a set of parameters for the PBPL system. In fact, as alluded to
earlier, two systems are desired: one right after the gun (at low energy) and
another somewhere after the linac (at high energy). The results are summarized
in Table 5.5 and Table 5.6. The details of the numerical choices are given in
Appendix 8.5.
Table 5.6: Numerical design criterion and figures of merit for the PBPL emittance
slits.
Parameter Value
Beam space-charge ratio R 0 ~ 67
Beamlet space-charge ratio R b 0.043
Scatter angle θ sc 1.03
Acceptance angle φ 0.5 mrad
Optimal drift length Ld 69 cm
Between beamlet SC ratio R b ’ 0.22
Signal to noise ratio S/N > 104
The accuracy of the emittance slits system is limited by the screen
performance as well as the assumptions made in the analysis routines. The size
212
of the image at the screen is equal to the drift distance, Ld, times the angular
divergence of the beam φ=ε n/(σγ). Thus, the beamlet size, at the screen, is directly
proportional to the emittance. The nominal width of the beamlets is 250 µm at 5
mm-mrad, the nominal emittance. Hence, a 20% change in emittance yields a ~50
µm beamlet width change, which is resolvable with the screens. These conditions
are similar at both the high and low energy emittance measurement stations.
In order to reduce mechanical error in the slits, care was taken in their
production. The fabrication of the slits yielded very tight tolerances (±0.0001" —
1/10 mil) by using wire Electric–Discharge Machining (EDM).
The slits have been operated reliably both after the gun and after the linac.
Alignment of the slits to the gun is facilitated by a vacuum actuator driven by a
stepping motor with a gear–head attached. The angular resolution of the actuator
is 0.018° with minimal backlash. In addition, the actuator has linear motion for
inserting and extracting the slits. Since the slits rely on the screens for detection,
the performance of the emittance diagnostic is tied to that of the screens. Table 5.7
presents an estimate of the emittance–diagnostic performance.
213
Table 5.7: Summary of the emittance slit diagnostic performance. The specifications
of the slits are closely tied to those of the screens.

Diagnostic Type 4 MeV Emittance 16 MeV Emittance
Useful range 3 - 10 mm-mrad 2 - 10 mm-mrad
Typical Resolution
~1 mm-mrad ~ 1 mm-mrad
(1 pixel)
Accuracy @5 mm-mrad ± 20 % (screen) ± 20 % (screen)

Signal Type Video Video
Signal Magnitude - -
Signal Duration - -
5.7: BEAM POSITION MONITORS
The beam position monitor (BPM) is one of the few nondestructive
diagnostics commonly available to both linear and circular accelerators. A BPM
can simultaneously measure the beam–centroid transverse–position and the charge
making it a powerful diagnostic; however, it exacts a high price in its complexity
and cost.
214
Feedthroughs
Cutaway View
Stripline Feedthroughs
attachment
Striplines
Flange
Figure 5.18: The BNL/ATF and UCLA/PBPL stripline BPM pickups. The overall
length of the striplines is 1.5 times the system RF frequency to allow for
heterodyning with the master RF oscillator.
A typical BPM system consists of a pickup unit positioned along the
beamline, front–end signal processing and back–end measurement electronics.
Various types of BPM pickups have been designed and numerous signal processing
schemes have been devised. The original PBPL system was based on the Brookhaven
National Laboratory (BNL) Accelerator Test Facility (ATF) BPM design, and
consists of stripline pickups (see Figure 5.18), a heterodyne microwave circuit
(see Figure 5.19) to mix down the BPM output and high speed ADCs to measure
the resulting signal [231]. The system was designed for multi–bunch use where it
was desired to know both the microbunch and macrobunch properties.
215
Splitter
RF in φ
Hybrid Couplers L
yu R I
A A-B yu-yd
L
Attenuator
BPM R I
B A+B yu+yd
xl
L
R I
A A-B xu-xd
yd
L
Attenuator
xr R I
B A+B xu+xd
Figure 5.19: The front–end BPM signal–processing unit (taken from J. T. Rogers,
et al.)
Because of the high cost of the microwave electronics and the complexity
of calibrating the signal processing unit, we began searching for alternative
processing schemes. Two systems have been considered and preliminary
measurements made [232].
The BPM system has not been fully implemented as of this writing. Without
experimental experience it is difficult to determine the performance of the BPM
diagnostic. Tests, both with beam and on the bench, indicate performance
216
commensurate with that reported by BNL [173]. Thus, we rely on the results of
Brookhaven. We present the characteristics here to show what diagnostics will be
available, in the near future, to the FEL system (see Table 5.8).
Again, without availability of experimental data, it is difficult to know
what problems will be associated with the BPMs. However, the cost and complexity
of the BPMs are obvious problems for small scale projects such as the PBPL FEL.
Table 5.8: Summary of beam position monitor performance.

Diagnostic Type Beam Position Charge
Useful (linear) range ± 3.5 mm < 2 nC
Typical Resolution < 100 µm < 1 pC
Accuracy ± 200 µm ± 6%
Signal Type Voltage Voltage
Signal Magnitude 100 mV /mm-nC 85 mV / nC
Signal Duration ~ 1 ns ~ 1 ns
217
5.8: COHERENT TRANSITION RADIATION BUNCHING FOIL
Coherent Transition Radiation (CTR) has emerged as a versatile diagnostic
tool in accelerators [145, 146, 148]. Pulse length and beam structure measurements
are routinely made using CTR. Using CTR to diagnose bunching of a beam was
recently proposed [149]: the analysis was presented in Section 2.5.2. Here we
describe the mechanics and implementation of the diagnostic itself.
Cold aperture Window/Cold filter

Detector Second lens
Actuator
ƒ~10 cm
IR Mirror
Cryostat
TR Foil
First lens
ƒ≈1 m
IR Mirror
Undulator
Vacuum/IR window
Electron Beam Path
Figure 5.20: The PBPL CTR bunching diagnostic. Note that the IR diagnostic
section can be identical to that used for the FEL itself.
A transition radiator is commonly a thin foil such as aluminum or aluminized
mylar [233]. The thin metal serves to provide a smooth surface which does not
218
accumulate charge and does not substantially scatter the beam. The foil must also
be able to handle the absorbed heat load. Finally, a detector is needed to measure
the output radiation. Figure 5.20 shows the proposed PBPL setup.
13 4.0 10 -6 8.0 10 -6 2.1 10 -5 1.6 10 -5

10
λ [m]
1 0 11
109
dN/dk
107
105
103
101
0 10 0 1 10 5 2 10 5 3 10 5 4 10 5
k [m-1]
Figure 5.21: The CTR photon wavenumber spectrum as a function of wavenumber.
Note the peak at about 22 µm, the wavelength of the simulated bunching. For
clarity, the result shown here is for 10% bunching. Only the amplitude changes
when examining the lower bunching expected from the PBPL FEL.
The ability to collect the CTR in the same manner and with the same
equipment that is used for the FEL simplifies implementing the diagnostic. In
fact, the CTR bunching diagnostic only requires adding the foil and actuator to
the FEL setup. The fact that the CTR wavelength matches the FEL wavelength
allows for the use of the same IR detector for both systems (see Figure 5.21). The
219
narrowness of the CTR emission (see Figure 5.22) allows for collection of the IR at
a distance of over 1 meter, as is done for the FEL (see Section 6.2).
4 10 6
3 10 6
dN/dθ
2 10 6
1 10 6
0 10 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
θ [deg]
Figure 5.22: The CTR photon angular spectrum as a function of emission angle.
Note how narrow the peak is compared to the incoherent emission.
The 1D bunching model of Chapter 2 does not contain two or
three–dimensional effects such as diffraction, and lack of transverse spatial
coherence, which generally increase the gain length and lower the bunching. For
the PBPL FEL, the bunching factor (Equation 2.95) b1 = 0.007 , while TDA3D
simulations yield a smaller value of b1 = 0.0018 . Applying the TDA3D estimate
gives Nγ ≅ 2 × 10 7 (see Appendix 8.3) CTR photons within the fundamental band
of the FEL (k ≅ kr ). Thus, the number of CTR photons is an order of magnitude
220
lower than the number of FEL photons. Nevertheless, detection issues should be
similar (see Section 6.2).
As with the BPMs, the CTR bunching monitor has not been used. Since a
bunched beam is required to test the CTR diagnostic, successful operation of the
FEL is required. The performance of the bunching diagnostic is going to depend
heavily on the infrared (IR) detectors (see Chapter 6). Nevertheless, we can make
some plausibility arguments regarding the performance of the bunching monitor.
Based on the arguments of Section 6.2, regarding the signal–to–noise (S/N)
ratio of the IR diagnostics, we can set an operating bandwidth for the CTR
diagnostic. A lower limit on the amount of bunching that can be detected is
~0.05%. The previous estimate assumes a S/N > 1. No upper limit is expected on
the amount of bunching that can be detected since the IR detector would not
saturate or suffer damage even at 100% bunching (and, in any event, a filter
could be used to limit the amount of light impinging the detector). Additionally,
large bunching would imply the need to look at higher harmonics. A
monochrometer is available for use in making frequency dependent measurements
(see Section 6.2.2).
The resolution of the CTR bunching monitor would be predicated by the
ADC used to digitize the IR detector signal.
221
The noise and problems associated with the IR diagnostics are discussed
in Section 6.2. One additional problem, specific to the bunching monitor, is the
need to gather the same percentage of the signal regardless of the electron–beam
parameters. The optical (IR) beam size will fluctuate, and care must be taken to
collect all of the signal. How significant the aforementioned problem will be is
unknown; however, a non–imaging collector can be placed on the IR detector to
alleviate the problem (see Section 6.2.2).
In addition to IR diagnostic issues, we can consider problems arising from
the foil. Two potential problems that the foil can introduce are scattering of the
beam and heating of the foil. These foil–related problems have been investigated
previously for the PBPL beam; here we state the results. While the foil does
scatter the relatively low energy PBPL beam, beam quality is not a major concern
after the bunching foil. Nevertheless, the bunching monitor can be made
quasi–nondestructive by using a sufficiently thin foil which causes acceptable
degradation of the beam quality: A 0.5-1 µm thin aluminum–coated mylar foil
would increase the emittance (at 5 mm-mrad) by less than 20%. The second
problem which can be considered is heating of the foil by the beam. Foil damage
can occur when more energy is deposited than can be dissipated by the foil.
Fortunately, the PBPL duty cycle is sufficiently low as not to cause concern. The
beam power is given by Pb = Ib mc2γ /e , which yields about 3 GW peak. The PBPL
beam is approximately 5 ps long, and operates at 5 Hz. Thus, the average power
is ≈ 90 milli–watts. Based on the above discussion and the previous work, we are
free to ignore the known sources of problems in our analysis of the bunching foil
222
diagnostic (see Table 5.9 for a summary). When data becomes available from,
and experience is gained on, the CTR diagnostic, a reevaluation of the performance
will be necessary.
Accuracy is limited primarily by the ability to calibrate absolutely the IR
(see Section 6.2).
Table 5.9: Summary of CTR bunching diagnostic performance.
Parameter Value
Diagnostic Type Bunching (CTR)
Useful range > 0.05 % bunching
Typical Resolution ADC dependent
Accuracy IR Diagnostic Dependant
Signal Type Video
Signal Magnitude ~ 107 photons/(% bunching)
Signal Duration prompt
We have reviewed the various diagnostics available on the PBPL beamline
(see Table 5.10): Faraday cups, an integrating current transformer, screens, energy
spectrometers, emittance slits, beam position monitors, and a bunching monitor.
Some of the diagnostics were uncalibrated (because of the difficulty in obtaining
an absolute calibration) and so estimates had to be made of the performance.
While these estimates may and should be questioned, a lack of beam time
223
necessitated such compromises. Regardless, the diagnostic performance estimates
served to guide our analysis in Chapter 3. Beam diagnostic performance is closely
tied to our ability to understand high–gain FELs; without accurate measurements
of the (input) beam characteristics, it is not possible to compare the FEL performance
to theoretical and computational models. In addition, understanding the limits of
typical beam diagnostics is important to general accelerator operation. Fortunately,
the PBPL beamline is sufficiently well equipped for ease of operation.
Table 5.10: A summary of the beam diagnostic performance with the accuracy
indicated as a percentage of nominal readings for the respective beam parameter.
Beam Parameter Diagnostic Type Accuracy (% reading)

Charge Faraday Cup 4%
Charge ICT 10%
Charge BPM sum 6%
Size Screen 10%
Position Screen 40 µm relative
Position BPM difference 200 µm
Energy Dipole 10%
Energy Spread Dipole 0.01%
Emittance Slits 20%
Bunching CTR IR Diagnostic Dependant
While it is difficult to draw conclusions about the adequacy of the beam
diagnostics without high quality beam and FEL operation, we can make some
general remarks:
♦ Charge can be well measured.
♦ Pulse length is poorly diagnosed.
224
♦ Emittance is well measured, but destructively.
♦ Beam size can be well measured.
The present lack of a pulse length diagnostic is being addressed. In the past, a
streak camera was used to diagnose the Cherenkov emission produced by the
beam traversing a quartz plate [234]. The lack of availability of a fast streak
camera has lead us to search for other means of measuring the pulse length. A
pulse length diagnostic based on CTR is being produced for PBPL [147], and
should be available shortly. In addition, a single–shot auto–correlator will allow
for “on–line” pulse length measurements of the drive laser beam.
The basic challenge faced in operating the beam diagnostics is the need to
measure simultaneously all the parameters, non destructively, of a space–charge
dominated beam. PBPL only partially meets this challenge. Further improvements
to the diagnostic abilities and accuracy would enhance our ability to understand
the FEL.
Next we extend our analysis of the diagnostics to the infrared measurements
as well as the undulator.
225
Chapter 6
Photon Beam Overview
The first part of this chapter describes the undulator, its mechanical design and
performance characteristics relevant to FEL operation. The second part of the
chapter deals with the infrared diagnostics, optics and detectors.
Chapter Contents
6.1: The Undulator ................................................................................227
6.2: IR Diagnostics.................................................................................238
6.3: Chapter Summary..........................................................................248
226
6.1: THE UNDULATOR
Constructing a periodic set of magnets with alternating poles is not, in
itself, a challenge. Early models of such periodic structures were built during the
Fifties for devices known as Ubitrons (see Chapter 1) [6]. Building periodic
structures with short periods, high magnetic–fields and good uniformity is a
continuing challenge [235-237]. Since construction of the first magnetic structures,
workers have attempted to decrease the period (to produce shorter wavelengths
or make the structure more compact), increase the magnetic field (to increase the
coupling between the beam and fields), and produce better field–quality.
The UCLA / Kurchatov undulator represents one of several evolutionarily
steps in permanent–magnet undulator design. The device was designed and
constructed by the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow (which was at the time part of
the Soviet Union). Academician Varfolomeev and his research group joined in a
collaboration with PBPL to provide the undulator and assist in operation of the
FEL at UCLA.
The undulator was delivered, partially assembled, to PBPL in early 1991.
The device was assembled, tuned and tested a few months after delivery [238]. It
was originally envisioned to have two undulators of similar design in order to
227
reach saturation in the FEL, build an optical klystron, and study the effects of
sectional undulators. World events intervened, and it was more realistic to only
expect the one section as part of the collaboration.
We consider the mechanical and magnetic design of the undulator next.
6.1.1: The Undulator Design
Adjustment screws
Entrance Exit
steering coil steering coil
26.5
5.4
Mounts Off axis magnets Mounts

Figure 6.1: Diagram of the PBPL/Kurchatov undulator showing a side view. The
lengths shown are in inches.
The PBPL undulator can, perhaps, best be described as a modified–hybrid
(a combination of magnets and iron poles) permanent–magnet undulator with
off–axis enhancement–magnets [239]. The device has a period of 1.5 cm and a
total (magnetic) length of 60 cm (40 periods). In addition to the usual matching
half–periods there are built–in steering–coils at the entrance and exit of undulator
(see Figure 6.1). Magnetic adjustments are made in a number of ways: tuning
228
screws are attached to each on–axis magnet for local changes, the off–axis magnets
can be moved for gross changes, and shims can be placed along the off–axis
magnets for small, non–local changes.
Figure 6.2: An internal cross–section of the PBPL undulator. The markers refer to
1) Vanadium–Permandur C–shaped yokes, 2) Neodymium–Iron–Boron pole tip
magnets, 3) Samarium–Cobalt booster magnets, 4) Hall–detectors support plate,
5) Translation stage for support plate.
The complicated geometry (see Figure 6.2) of the undulator allows for an
on–axis field (7.5 kG) which is beyond that achievable by conventional hybrid
designs. The Halbach limit (which, strictly speaking, only applies to a particular
geometry) can be exceeded by 25% beyond the standard–hybrid value [240]. The
high on–axis field is achieved by shunting the field of the off–axis magnets through
c–shaped yokes (again, see Figure 6.2) [241]. The yokes act to superimpose the
fields of the off–axis magnets with those of the on–axis magnets. The superposition
is not linear, however, since saturation can occur in the Vanadium–Permandur
229
yokes. By a judicious choice of geometry, it is possible to have the yoke saturation
minimized (or eliminated). The superposition of the fields is done in such a way
that in critical parts of the yoke (“hot spots”), the fields buck each other.
Access to
adjustment
screws
Beampipe
4 mm ID
Top Pole
Support plate Support plate
Bottom pole
3.7
Access to
adjustment
screws
Figure 6.3: A front (beamline) view of the PBPL/Kurchatov undulator. The outer
dimensions are in inches.
The side magnets which allow the undulator to have a high magnetic–field
also cause limited access to the beampipe (see Figure 6.3). The undulator’s 5 mm
gap combined with the lack of side access makes insertion of diagnostics impractical.
A ~4 mm ID (seamless 304 stainless steel) tube ~70 cm long is used as a beampipe
through the undulator (see Figure 6.3). The undulator’s parameters are summarized
in Table 6.1.
230
Table 6.1: The undulator design parameters for the PBPL FEL.
Parameter Value
Period λ u 1.5 cm
Total length Lu 60 cm
Gap g 5 mm
Pole tip field B u 7.5 kG
Beam pipe ID 4 mm
Next we review the methods used to measure the undulator field as well
the results of the measurements.
6.1.2: Measurements
Tuning the undulator is done to bring the undulator field as close to the
ideal on–axis sinusoid as possible. More importantly, the maximum value of the
second integral of the field along the undulator longitudinal–axis must be smaller
than the minimum transverse electron–beam size. The second integral of the field
represents the path taken by the electrons (neglecting space charge and radiation
forces). Since, according to theory, the undulation of the electrons must be smaller
than the beam radius, the second integral of the field must meet the same
requirement.
231
The task of tuning the undulator is facilitated by knowing the magnetic
field as well as the first and second integrals of the field along the undulator
longitudinal–axis. The magnetic–field measurements are required to have a spacial
resolution much smaller than half the undulator period (0.75 cm), and a field
resolution much better than the maximum tolerable field error (about 0.2%, see
Section 3.3.6).
The first of the two methods used to measure the field is based on a Hall
probe, and is considered in the next section.
6.1.2.1: Hall Probe

Undulator (top view)
Hall probe
Alignment rail
Wire and pulleys Stepping motor
Acquisition Computer
Figure 6.4: A cartoon of the undulator Hall–probe measurement system showing

the data acquisition computer, Hall–probe carriage and translating
stepping–motor.
The Hall probe is a standard device used as a magnetometer (or Gaussmeter).
By mounting a small Hall–probe on a carriage it is possible to slide the device
232
along a rail (built into the undulator) and accumulate data about the undulator
field. With a sufficient number of data points taken per period, it is possible to
calculate numerical values for the first and second field–integrals. A Hall probe
system, as describe above, was used during the initial tuning of the PBPL undulator
(see Figure 6.4).
The Hall probe system, which relied on a stepping motor and computer
control, required ~ 15 minutes to one set of measurements (of the entire undulator).
Another ~ 15 minutes were required to reset the Hall probe for a subsequent
measurement. At ~ 30 minutes per–measurement pass, tuning the undulator was
an arduous task taking months to complete. Nevertheless, the end result was
state of the art (see Figure 6.5 and Figure 6.6).

8
2
Field [kG]
-2
-4
-6
-8
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Distance Along Undulator [mm]
Figure 6.5: The result of typical field measurements of the PBPL undulator using
the Hall probe system. The data shown is at an intermediate gap setting, thus the
field is lower than the stated peak of ≈7.5 kG.
233
140
Simulated Beam Trajectory [µm]

−e ct z
mγc ∫0 ∫0 u
dz ′ B (z)dz
120
Second Integral of Field
100
80
60
40
20
-20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Distance Along Undulator [mm]
Figure 6.6: The second integral of the undulator field, numerically calculated
from the Hall probe field measurements. The lines with arrows highlight the
minimum and maximum excursion of the calculated beam trajectory.
The PBPL undulator has a peak field deviation (∆B/B) of 0.25%, that
corresponds to an RMS error of ≈0.04%. Higher–harmonic content of the fields is
also small (compared to the first harmonic): Third–order fields were not desired
for this high–gain system. Finally, the magnetic field second integral peak–to–peak
value of ≈ 115 µm is smaller than the beam radius of ≈ 200 µm. We require that
the undulation amplitude be smaller than the beam radius so that the electron
beam and radiation still overlap. We can compare the second integral of the
undulator field to the ideal beam trajectory amplitude (see 2.163 on page 93),
λuau
∆xideal = . (6.1)
2πγ
234
The ideal wiggle amplitude is ≈ 72 µm for the PBPL FEL, which is not so different
than the measured value from undulator. Hence, the on–axis undulator field
appears to be well suited for the PBPL FEL.
Next we discuss an alternate system for measuring the undulator fields
which is useful for characterizing the off–axis components.
6.1.2.2: Pulsed–Wire System
Pulley end Detector Fixed end

Undulator
weight
Power Supply
Pulsegenerator
pulse Generator
1K
Figure 6.7: A schematic of the pulse wire undulator measurement system.
The PBPL undulator has also been measured on a pulsed wire system (see
Figure 6.7) [242]. The system was first made available to UCLA by Dodge Warren
and Cliff Fortgang of Los Alamos. The undulator was shipped to LANL in the
hopes of installing it on the final run of Average Power EXperiment (APEX).
While the APEX installation never occurred (and the facility was, sadly,
235
subsequently shut down), extensive measurements of the undulator were made
[243]. Recently, a pulsed wire system similar to the LANL design was built at
PBPL.
The pulsed wire relies on a tensioned wire through which a current pulse
is sent. The magnetic field produces a force on the wire which is measured as a
displacement of the wire as a function of time. As the acoustic wave travels
down the wire, the wire position is measured using a laser and photodiode.
There are some advantages to the pulsed wire system over a Hall probe:
♦ High data collection rate (~ 0.1 - 1 Hz vs. 0.005 Hz for the Hall
probe)
♦ Analog (direct measurement of) first and second field–integration.
♦ Simple, inexpensive system.
♦ Easy to make off–axis field measurements.
The pulsed wire system (quickly) verified that the measurements of the Hall
probe were, at least qualitatively, accurate (see Figure 6.8). The off–axis fields are
still being analyzed, but are easy to measure (see Figure 6.9).
236
0.16
Second Integral of Field [au]

0.12
0.08
0.04
0.00
0 400 800 1200 1600
Distance Down Undulator [au]
Figure 6.8: The second integral of the undulator field measured using the pulsed
wire and displayed on an oscilloscope.
The magnetic field of the PBPL/Kurchatov undulator appears to be well
suited for IRFEL operation. Indeed, the device represents a milestone in compact,
short–period undulator design. We next turn to the means of measuring the
output of the undulator.
237
(+1/2 mm in X)
Second Integral of Field [au] 0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 400 800 1200 1600

Distance Down Undulator [au]
Figure 6.9: An example of an off–axis field measured using the pulsed wire. In
this case, the wire was displaced 0.5 mm from center in the wiggle plane.
6.2: IR DIAGNOSTICS
The IR beamline is responsible for focusing, steering, and measuring the
radiation output from the FEL. Because of the many uncertainties involved in the
FEL experiment, it is desired to have the simplest optical transport and
measurement system possible. Loss of signal (radiation) from the FEL is a major
concern since the expected output is small. Differentiating the FEL signal from
the black body background is also critical.
238
With the above concerns in mind, we turn first to the transport of the IR
and the optics involved.
6.2.1: Transport and Optics
Actuator
Quadrupole
Dipole
Undulator
Exit
IR output
Diagnostic Steering
Electron Beam Path Vacuum/IR window
Figure 6.10: A layout of the exit of the electron beamline. The distance from the
undulator exit to the beamline end is fixed by available hardware and experimental
needs.
239
The optical–beam size at the exit of the undulator determines much of the
design of the IR beamline. The distance from the exit of the undulator to the end
of the electron beamline is fixed by available hardware (see Figure 6.10). The
minimum length of the post–undulator electron beamline is fixed by three
considerations: the need and desire to bend the electron beam away from the
optical beam, the desire to know some beam parameters, and the need to control
the electron beam size. In principle, the radiation from the undulator could be
deflected, by a mirror (with a hole in it) or a foil, soon after the undulator.
However, it was desired to avoid any added complexity in the optical beamline.
The geometry of the optical beamline is determined by the initial optical
size and divergence, the distance to the electron beamline exit and the aperture
(window) size of the exit (see Figure 6.11).
Beamline IR Detector
Window
Dewar
Window
First Lens Second Lens

Undulator Exit
Cold Aperture
Figure 6.11: The factors which determine the geometry of the beamline are
displayed graphically.
We can simplify the geometry in order to make some estimates [244]. First
we consider the propagation of the optical beam from the undulator to the detector.
The beam can be considered as coming from a point source at the entrance of the
undulator to yield an initial beam size of σ b~380 µm at the undulator exit and a
240
λr
beam divergence of θ γ = ≈3.8 mrad (@ 10 µm). Note that the radiation is
Lu
spatially coherent since (2σ )( 2θ ) < λr . Finally, the Rayleigh range is 24 cm. Thus,
after the drift from the undulator to the dipole exit of ≈ 1 m, the beam will grow
to 3.8 mm.
We can employ a simple two lens telescope to gather the light exiting the
beamline IR window, and focus it onto the detector (see Figure 6.12). In actuality,
reflective optics (mirrors) rather than lenses are used to minimize losses. Regardless,
the analysis is straightforward (see Appendix 8.7). The first lens is placed as close
to the IR vacuum window as possible. The focal length is chosen to be equal to
the distance to the undulator. The second lens has a focal length set by the
demagnification factor needed to focus the IR onto the detector. The IR detector
along with the optics are placed in an air tight box which can be purged with a
dry gas such as nitrogen (again, see Figure 6.12). The purge box reduces the
amount of water vapor, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide below the levels
which are normally present in air. The previously mentioned substances strongly
absorb IR in various bands and lines between our 10-30 µm operating range.
Having established a simple means of collecting the light, we turn to a
calculation of the signal at the detector. We are concerned with comparing the
power or energy in the FEL signal versus the blackbody background. The
bandwidth and field of view play central roles in determining what signals are
collected by our detector.
241
Insertable
mirror
Filter Wheel
IR Lens
Aperture
IR Mirror
HeNe Detector
Gas Box
Figure 6.12: A more complete IR diagnostics layout including wavelength
detection, filters and beam–size diagnostics.
6.2.2: The IR Detector and Background
Infrared detectors have developed over the years through the efforts of
astronomers, material scientists, and military research [245]. The infrared band
still presents many challenges: material limits, black body background, absorption,
etc.. The desire to operate the PBPL FEL from 10 to 30 µm limits the choice of
detectors and optics which can operate over this band. Briefly, reflective optics
(copper, gold or silver coated substrates, polished aluminum, etc.) are used to
avoid absorption problems (aberrations caused by reflective optics are not a serious
issue for our light gathering purposes). Thalium–Bromoiodine (KRS–5) is used
for windows because of its high transmission rate over a wide range.
242
We can quickly describe the basic features desired for the IR detector:
♦ Low electric and thermal noise
♦ Fast response time
♦ Very sensitive in the 10-30 µm range
The above features lead to choosing a cryogenic (liquid Helium) cooled
detector with a very low internal capacitance. In addition, the need to be sensitive
over a wide range of wavelengths limits the choice to a few detector types. PBPL
is using a copper–doped germanium detector (see Table 6.2).
Table 6.2: The PBPL IR detector’s characteristics. The detector is a commercial

unit (CU-17 from EG&G Judson) with a liquid helium dewar.
Parameter Value
Diameter 3.5 mm
Response time (50 Ω) 5 ns
Sensitive range 2-32 µm
Operating temperture 4.2 °K
The IR detector, as with other instruments, is susceptible to noise from
many sources. In order to determine what sources of noise might be significant, it
is useful to categorize the types of noise.
Thermal noise comes from the random motion of the charge carriers in the
detector. A characteristic of thermal noise is that it contributes equally at all
frequencies. Shot noise is due to the statistical nature of the photoemission process,
and is proportional to the square root of the number of signal photons. Random
fluctuations in the conductance of solid state detectors causes current noise. A
243
characteristic of current noise is the inverse dependence with frequency, and so it
is often referred to as 1/f noise. The final type of noise we consider is generation-
recombination noise which results from the random recombinations of electrons
and holes in semiconductor detectors. Generation-recombination noise has a
frequency cut off at about the reciprocal of the carrier lifetime. In addition to the
detector noise, there can be electronics noise from the amplifier, cables, etc..
Regardless of the source, noise can result in random fluctuations in the
output voltage/current measured from the detector, and sets a lower limit on
signal amplitude (power) that can be detected. While the detector’s internal sources
of noise can be significant, a more serious issue is the blackbody background.
In the infrared the background thermal (blackbody) radiation is not
negligible especially in our operating range (10 - 30 µm). The Stefan-Boltzmann
equation can be used to estimate the amount of radiant energy per unit volume
per unit frequency, due to a blackbody source at temperature T [246]:
dU h ω3
= 2 3 . (6.2)
dVdω π c exp(hω kT) −1
We can integrate the above relation over the FEL bandwidth and a suitable solid
angle. We can then integrate over the response time of the detector (~nsec) to
obtain the total number of photons collected by the detector (in the minimum
amount of time). The number of photons from the FEL can be compared to the
square root of the number of background photons to obtain a signal–to–noise
ratio. The square root of the background level is the relevant noise parameter
since it is the fluctuations in the background level that cannot be compensated;
244
the average (DC) background level can be measured and compensated (it acts as
an offset or pedestal).
In order to proceed with a calculation of the background level incident
upon the detector, it is necessary to understand the appropriate integration volume
and bandwidth. We consider two geometries: a detector with a cold stop, and a
detector with a Winston cone — a non–imaging collecting optic.
Cold Aperture
Cooled Narrow Band Filter
IR Window Detector Element
rd rc
Coolant Chamber
rw Vacuum Space
Lcw
Ldw
Figure 6.13: The detailed geometry of the IR detector with a cold stop.
A cold stop is used to limit the aperture or Field Of View (FOV) of the
detector (see Figure 6.13). By knowing the size of the dewar window (rw), the
detector radius (rd), the radius of the cold aperture (rc), the distance from the
window to the detector (Ldw) and assuming that the aperture is very close to the
245
detector (Lcw≈Ldw ), we can calculate the effective volume “seen” by the detector.
The volume is a cone of length cτ, where τ is the response time of the detector,
and opening angle determined by the FOV of the detector. Appendix 8.8 contains
a calculation of the number of photons collected by a cold stop with a ≈10° FOV.
The FOV is chosen to be larger than the opening angle of the FEL output, but
small enough to limit the background collected. The FOV must also be large
enough to allow for misalignments of the detector.
In addition to the geometry, we must account for the bandwidth of the
detector. Most commercial detectors are sensitive over a much wider bandwidth
than the FEL signal. We can either use a cold narrow–band filter to help screen
out some of the background, or integrate over the entire detector’s bandwidth.
Since it is desired to vary the operating wavelength of the FEL, and cold filters
are difficult to obtain at our wavelengths, we leave the IR detector unfiltered.
Hence we need to integrate the black body background over the 2-32 µm range.
The other geometry we consider is a Winston cone, which is a non–imaging
collecting optic (see Figure 6.14). The cone offers the advantage that alignment of
optics and collection of light is greatly simplified. Since initial operation of the
FEL will produce output over a wide variety of optical beam sizes and divergences,
it is desirable to avoid having an optical system that requires careful alignment
and focusing.
Calculating the light collected by the cone requires integrating over the
solid angle of background radiation incident on all parts of the cone (see Appendix
8.8 for the calculation).
246
rw rc Detector end
Lcw Lc
Figure 6.14: The dimensions of relevance for the Winston cone condenser.
The blackbody contributions over the ≈5 ns response time of the detector
for the two configurations are summarized in Table 6.3. The shot noise (the square
root of the photon count) can be compared to the total FEL output to obtain the
signal–to–noise ratio.
Table 6.3: A comparison of the total FEL output and the blackbody background
shot–noise (the square root of the number of photons) collected by the detector.
Number of FEL photons 108

Background with cone 105
Background with 10° cold stop 103
The signal–to–noise (background) ratio of the IR detector is very high
(under ideal assumptions). Thus we can generally neglect the blackbody
contribution. Indeed, the parameters of the cone and cold stop were chosen to
make the blackbody background noise level negligible.
247
The Kurchatov/PBPL undulator is well suited for IR FEL work. Its main
disadvantage is its length, at 60 cm it is insufficient to bring the FEL to saturation.
Regardless, the undulator produces a field quality, high peak field, and short
period — all desirable properties for FEL operation. Extensive measurements
have been made of the undulator using both Hall probes and pulsed wire methods.
The infrared output of the undulator is measured using a cryogenic detector
because of the weakness of the signal. In addition to IR optics, a non-imaging
collector (a Winston cone) is used to facilitate alignment and relax the focusing
requirements into the detector. Optionally, a cold aperture can be used to limit
the detector’s field of view in order to reduce the amount of black body background
collected. The thermal black body background appears to be the main source of
“noise”. The response time of the detector compared to the duration of the IR
pulse is another important issue effecting the signal–to–noise ratio. The detector
has a response time of ~5 ns, compared to ~5 ps for the IR signal duration. Thus,
the black body background is integrated over a time scale roughly a thousand
times longer than the duration of the IR signal. Nevertheless, the signal–to–noise
ratio of the IR detection system should still be high.
Calibration of the IR detector, electronics and related optics is important
for obtaining accurate measurements. The types of calibrations necessary depend
on the measurements. The response of the detector and the optical properties of
the IR beamline as a function of wavelength are significant for comparing FEL
operation at one energy to another. On the other hand, an absolute calibration of
248
the detector’s sensitivity is necessary if one is to make claims about the start-up
level.
A black body source, monochrometer, chopper, pyrometer and various IR
optics are used at PBPL to characterize our detector. The test bed allows for
measurement of the detectors response to incident radiation. While studies of
frequency response and black body background are readily performed, the time
response of the detector is not easy to measure. We require a 10-30 µm source
with a pulse length ~5 ps (or at least <<5 ns, the detectors rise time). While such
sources exist, time response tests have not been done on the PBPL detector as of
this writing. It remains to be shown that absolute measurements will be possible.
249
Chapter 7
Conclusions
This dissertation has presented a description and analysis of a high-gain
Free Electron Laser (FEL) constructed at UCLA’s Particle Beam Physics Laboratory
(PBPL). The PBPL FEL has yet to operate (lase). Studying the system has lead to a
deeper understanding of high gain. Below we review the purpose and goals of
the PBPL system. We also summarize the challenges posed by the FEL.
The PBPL FEL was designed to provide data on the start–up process from
noise (SASE mode). Few past systems have run in the high–gain regime, and
virtually none have operated in the high–gain SASE mode. The unfortunate lack
of data on SASE is problematic for recently–proposed short wavelength FELs
which operate in the high–gain SASE mode. It is hoped that the UCLA system
will begin to address the needs of the proposed systems. In addition, the PBPL
experiment addresses an interesting nonlinear process which displays collective
behavior — a SASE FEL.
While there are a myriad of ways to study the start-up process in an FEL,
the basic task is to ascertain the effective start-up level. Here we take the effective
start-up level to mean the power produced in the first gain length of the undulator,
which is subsequently amplified by the remainder of the undulator. The above
250
definition of the effective start-up level is somewhat ambiguous since it includes
the FEL gain length, which may itself be affected by the start-up process.
Nevertheless, if we assume that the gain length is unaffected or insensitive to the
details of the start-up process, then the effective start–up level can be ascertained
from measurements of the FEL output. In addition to the output of the FEL, the
input beam parameters must be well known.
The key beam parameter that can be varied, and against which the FEL
performance can be parameterized, is the beam current. The beam current, actually
the beam charge, can readily be varied by controlling the energy in the RF
photocathode gun’s drive laser pulse. The remainder of the beam parameters
(emittance, energy spread, energy, and beam sizes) must also be known.
Information on the beam is provided by a number of diagnostics. It is the accuracy
of these diagnostics which determines how well the experimental results can be
compared to models and theory. The sensitivity of the FEL to various beam
parameters is also a factor in limiting the predictive power of the experiment.
The PBPL FEL is sensitive to both current and emittance variations about the
nominal value, while it is relatively insensitive to beam size and energy–spread
fluctuations. Thus, the emittance and current are central to the success of the
experiment.
The emittance slits in use at PBPL are effective at quantifying the beam
emittance. The beam–current diagnostics — Faraday cups, beam–position
monitors, and an integrating current transformer — are adequate for initial
measurements, but improvements in the signal–to–noise ratio are necessary if
accurate predictions of the start-up process are to be made. Various steps can be
251
taken to improve the accuracy of the diagnostics, including the addition of
amplifiers, more careful calibrations, and the use of better shielded cables. Finally,
the laser pulse length needs to be monitored with a single–shot auto–correlator,
or other suitable device, to minimize the uncertainty with respect to the pulse
length.
Measurement of the IR output of the FEL requires the use of cryogenic,
high–speed detectors in conjunction with collecting optics. Estimates indicate
that, despite the room temperature blackbody background, the signal–to–noise
ratio should be high.
In addition to the challenges posed by the beam diagnostics, operation of
an RF photocathode gun provides its own hurdles. Amplitude fluctuations in the
drive laser cause a variation in the output charge of the gun. Since the beam is in
the space–charge dominated regime, fluctuations in charge can lead to fluctuations
in other parameters such as pulse length and beam (transverse) size. While the
PBPL diagnostics are designed for shot–to–shot measurements, it is not possible
simultaneously and non–destructively to measure the emittance, charge, energy
spread and beam size. Thus, fluctuations in the beam parameters introduce an
uncertainty in the input parameters to the FEL. These input uncertainties obviously
lead to uncertainties in the performance of the FEL.
All told, the PBPL FEL experiment is challenging, with marginal to high
gain in the range of parameters of interest. The experiment would represent a
first — study of a high–gain SASE FEL.
252
Chapter 8
Appendices
Chapter Contents
8.1: Spontaneous Emission Calculations............................................254

8.2: Three Dimensional Analytic FEL Model Results ......................258
8.3: Bunching Monitor Calculations...................................................264
8.4: Strong Focusing in Planar Undulators........................................269
8.5: Calculations for the Emittance Slits.............................................293
8.6: Beam Trajectory Calculation.........................................................296
8.7: IR Optics Calculator.......................................................................298
8.8: Black Body Background Estimation............................................300
8.9: Additional Support Systems.........................................................304
253
8.1: SPONTANEOUS EMISSION CALCULATIONS
A LabVIEW Virtual Instrument (VI) — a type of program with a graphical
interface — was written based on a MathCAD calculation by Pellegrini. Here we
present the upgraded MathCAD document which contains the angular and
frequency corrections discussed in Section 2.3. The LabVIEW VI, while faster for
calculation purposes, is not suited for printing and viewing on paper. All
calculations below are for a single electron; the final result must be multiplied by
the number of electron in the beam.
We begin by defining some constants and obtaining user inputs:

INPUTS CONSTANTS
Nu 5 Number of periods (in gain length or c 3. 108 m/sec
undulator)
γ 32.6 Beam energy in mc2 ε 8.85 . 10 12
ρ 1. 10 2 Rho
q 1.6 . 10 19
λ u 0.015 Period in meters
E 0 5.11 . 105 Volts
au 1 Undulator Parameter
r e 2.81 . 10 15 m
I 200 Beam current in Amps
λ r 23. 10 6 Wavelength in meters
r b 300. 10 6 Beam radius
Next, some simple relations are calculated:
254
Caluclated Terms
λu
Lg 1D Gain length L g = 0.069
4. 3. π . ρ
N u. λ u
Ng Number of periods in one gain length N g = 1.088 4. 3. π . ρ. N u = 1.088
Lg
λu a u2 Resonant energy
λR . 1 5
2 2 λ R = 1.059 10
2 γ
.
2. π . c Resontant frequency
ω R 14
λR ω R = 1.781 10
Lu N u. λ u Length of Undulator (or integration distance)

L u = 0.075
λu
dz Integration steps
10 dz = 0.002
Lu Number of steps
Nz N z = 50
dz
2. π
ku Undulator wavenumber
λu
Then, the electron trajectories are formulated:

Electron Trajectory
au
β x( s ) . sin( k . s )
u
γ
a u2
1 .( 1 cos( 2. k u. s ) )
2
β s( s ) 1
2. γ 2
a u. λ u
x( s ) . cos( k . s )
2. π . γ u
Radiation terms are defined:
255
Radiation terms
a u2
ω
1
2 a u2
a( ω , φ , θ , s ) 1. . s. 1 cos( θ ) . sin( 2. k . s ) ...
u
c 2. γ 2 8. γ 2 . k u
+ ( x( s ) . sin( θ ) . cos( φ ) )
v x( ω , φ , θ , s ) β s( s ) . sin( θ ) . cos( θ ) . cos( φ ) β x( s ) . ( cos( θ ) 2 sin( θ ) 2 . sin( φ ) 2 )
v s( ω , φ , θ , s ) β s( s ) . sin( θ ) 2 β x( s ) . sin( θ ) . cos( θ ) . cos( φ )
v z( ω , φ , θ , s ) β s( s ) . sin( θ ) . cos( θ ) . sin( φ ) β x( s ) . sin( θ ) 2 . sin( φ ) . cos( φ )
These are followed by the radiation integrals. Here the integrals are performed
over slices along the undulator. The slices are used to facilitate the angular and
bandwidth corrections:
Radiation Integrals (of the nth slice in z)
n. dz
I 1( ω , φ , θ , n ) v x( ω , φ , θ , s ) . exp( a( ω , φ , θ , s ) ) d s
(n 1 ) . dz
n. dz
I 2( ω , φ , θ , n ) v s( ω , φ , θ , s ) . exp( a( ω , φ , θ , s ) ) d s
(n 1 ) . dz
n. dz
I 3( ω , φ , θ , n ) v z( ω , φ , θ , s ) . exp( a( ω , φ , θ , s ) ) d s
(n 1 ) . dz
The energy spectrum is given next (again for one electron):

r e. E 0. ω 2
U( ω , φ , θ , n ) . I ( ω , φ , θ , n ) . I ( ω , φ , θ , n ) I ( ω , φ , θ , n ) . I ( ω , φ , θ , n ) ...
1 1 2 2
4. π 2 . c3
+ I 3( ω , φ , θ , n ) . I 3( ω , φ , θ , n )
The angular integral and corrections are defined next:
256
Angular Integrals
2. π
E φ( ω , θ, n ) U( ω , φ , θ , n ) d φ Phi integral
0
1.
∆ω( n ) ω R
n
a u2
θ ca( n )
2.
1 . ∆ω( n ) Coherence angle
γ 2 ω R θ ca( N z ) = 0.011
Finally, the energy is obtained by summing over all the slices, and integrating
over the bandwidth and angle for each slice:

n 1 , 2 .. N z
∆ω( n )
ω R
2 θ ca( n )
1 .
E E φ( ω , θ, n ) dθ dω
Lu ∆ω( n ) 0
n ω R
2
257
8.2: THREE DIMENSIONAL ANALYTIC FEL MODEL RESULTS
The following items are MathCAD documents with the Chin, Kim and Xie (CKX)
3D FEL model. The MathCAD document is taken from an earlier file of Pellegrini’s.
The values used are similar to those given in Table 3.12 and the results are discussed
in Section 3.1.3.
First, some constants are defined:

FEL Calculator for Emittance, Current and Energy Spread
(using the K. -J. Kim formalism)
Constants
c 3. 108 speed of light (m/s)
r e 2.81 . 10 15 electron radius (m)
e 1.6 . 10 19 electron charge (c)
E 0 5.11 . 105 electron rest energy (V)
K 0 93.5 undulator parameter scaling (e/mc)
Next, standard parameters are calculated from the user inputs:
258
Calculated parameters
K
B Peak undulator field (T)
K 0. λ u
λu K2 Resonant energy (on-axis)

γ . 1
2. λ r 2
e. c
IA Alfven current (A)
re
K2 K2
JJ J0 J1 Bessel function factor
4 2. K2 4 2. K2
2. γ . λ u
β0 Natural focusing Betafunction
2. π . K
2. π . c
ω Resonant frequency
λr
One dimensional values and the “D” parameter are calculated below:
Formulas
1
3
1 λu 2 I
ρ( I , σ E , ε n ) . K. JJ. . . 1 FEL parameter
64. π 2 γ I A ε n. β
ρ( I 0 , 0 , ε n0 ) = 0.027
4. K2 . I . JJ
D( I , σ E , ε n )
K2 I A
γ. 1
2
λu
L1 G( I , σ E , ε n ) 1D Gain Length
π . 2. 3. ρ( I , σ E , ε n )
εn β
Z R( I , σ E , ε n ) 4. π . . Radiation Rayleigh range
γ λr
3
4 π
ω p( I , σ E , ε n ) ( γ . ρ( I , σ E , ε n ) ) 2 . . c. 2. Plasma frequency
K λu
Scaled three–dimensional parameters are calculated next:
259
λu
u 1( I , σ E , ε n ) Focusing parameter
2. π . β. D( I , σ E , ε n )
4. π . ε n Emittance parameter
f 4( I , σ E , ε n )
λ r. γ
f 4( I , σ E , ε n )
u 2( I , σ E , ε n )
u 1( I , σ E , ε n )
χ( I , σ E , ε n ) ln( u 2( I , σ E , ε n ) )
f 1( I , σ E , ε n ) 0.759 0.238 . χ( I , σ E , ε n ) 0.0139 . χ( I , σ E , ε n ) 2

( f 4( I , σ E , ε n ) . u 1( I , σ E , ε n ) ) 2
f 2( I , σ E , ε n ) 1
0.149 0.0268 . ln( u 1( I , σ E , ε n ) )
g 1( I , σ E , ε n ) 44.03 3.32 . χ( I , σ E , ε n ) 5.45 . χ( I , σ E , ε n ) 2

2 4 6
σE σE σE
g 2( I , σ E , ε n ) 0.713 . 68.65 .
D( I , σ E , ε n ) D( I , σ E , ε n ) D( I , σ E , ε n )
g 3( I , σ E , ε n ) f 1( I , σ E , ε n ) . f 2( I , σ E , ε n ) g 1( I , σ E , ε n ) . g 2( I , σ E , ε n )
Then, the three dimensional gain length, saturated power and saturation length
are calculated:
3D Gain Length (m)
λu
L G( I , σ E , ε n ) . exp( g ( I , σ , ε ) )
3 E n
4. π . D( I , σ E , ε n )
Saturation Power (W)
L1 G( I , σ E , ε n ) 2
P( I , σ E , ε n ) ρ( I , σ E , ε n ) . γ . E 0. I.
L G( I , σ E , ε n )
260
Saturation Length
2. π . P( I , σ E , ε n )
L sat( I , σ E , ε n ) L G( I , σ E , ε n ) . ln
ρ( I , σ E , ε n ) 2 . γ . E 0. ω . e
User inputs are entered at the end (for convenience) and calculated parameter
values are returned:

Inputs Calculated Parameters
λ u 0.015 Undulator period (m) γ = 22.1163 Resonant energy
K 1 Undulator parameter β 0 = 0.075 Natural focusing
λ r 23. 10 6 Resonant wavelength (m) B = 0.713 Peak field

13
β 0.075 Betafunction (m) ω = 8.195 10 Resonant frequency
JJ = 0.91 Bessel factor
Baseline values
I 0 200 Current (I)
σ E0 0. 10 4 Energy spread
ε n0 5. 10 6 Normalize emittance
σ E1 1. 10 3
σ E2 5. 10 3
The basic outputs are presented:
261
Outputs
( functions of current, energy spread and emittance)
L G( I 0 , σ E0 , ε n0 ) = 0.05
L1 G( I 0 , σ E0 , ε n0 ) = 0.052
7
P( I 0 , σ E0 , ε n0 ) = 6.58 10
P 1( I 0 , σ E0 , ε n0 ) = 0.017
L sat( I 0 , σ E0 , ε n0 ) = 1.094
11
ω p( I 0 , 0 , ε n0 ) = 2.269 10
Finally, some graphs are generated (many others can also be produced):
I 50 , 60 .. 300
Gain Length vs. Current for Various Energy Spreads
0.15
L G I , σ E0 , ε n0
0.1
L G I , σ E1 , ε n0
L G I , σ E2 , ε n0 0.05
0
50 100 150 200 250 300
I
262
N 25 Number of sample points
i 1 .. N j 1 .. N
I min 50 ε min 2.5 . 10 6
I max 300 ε max 10. 10 6
i 1 j 1
Ii I min ( I max I min ) . εj ε min ( ε max ε min ) .
N 1 N 1
Li , j L G( Ii , 0 , ε j )
Gain Length
0.116
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
0
Emittance
263
8.3: BUNCHING MONITOR CALCULATIONS
Using the relations derived in Section 2.5, we can numerically evaluate a CTR
bunching foil for use on PBPL. In addition, we can compare the analytic results
with numerical solutions.
First, user inputs are obtained (some of these are redundant):

Coherent Transition Radiation Bunching Monitor
Work by J. Rosenzweig, A. Tremaine and G. Travish
MathCAD by Gil Travish
Modified: 4/10/96
Inputs
γ 25 Beam energy [cm^2]
λ u 0.015 Undulator period [m]
σ z 7. 10 4 Bunch length [m]
σ r 3. 10 4 Bunch radius [m]
au 1 Undulator parameter
N b 6. 109 Number of electron in the bunch
b 1 0.0018 Bunching parameter (first harmonic)
Some constants are defined:
264
Constants
c 3. 108 Speed of light [m/s]
E0 5.11 . 105 Electron rest energy [eV]
e 1.6 . 10 19 Electron charge [C]
1
α Fine structure constant
137
Some variables are defined:

Initial Calcs
λu a u2 5
λr . 1 Resonant wavelength [m] λ r = 1.8 10
2 2
2 γ
.
2. π 5
kr Resonant wavenumber [1/m] k r = 3.491 10
λr
1
β 1 Relativistic beta β = 0.999
γ2
The exponential–integral sum is defined:

n 1 .. 20
(n 1 )! .
Ei( x ) exp( x ) . ( 1 )n Exponential Integral function
n
x
n
The angular cutoff used for the approximation is also computed:

2
θa Approximate angular cut off for CTR
k r. σ r
The full differential spectrum is calculated next:
265
Full equations
DIfferential spectrum (dk, dq)
2. 2
1. α N b b 1 .
.
sin( θ ) 3
N f( k , θ ) . exp ( k. σ r. sin( θ ) ) 2 . exp (k k r )2
4 2. π . k ( 1 β. cos( θ ) ) 2
The spectrum is integrated numerically over frequencies (wavenumbers):

Anglur Spectrum: Spectrum numerically integrated over1% frequency band
1.005 . k r
N i( θ ) N f( k , θ ) d k
.
0.995 k r
7
N i( θ a ) = 2.976 10
and angles:
2. θ a
N ii N i( θ ) d θ
0
6
N ii = 1.194 10
A comparison to the approximate analytic relations is made:

Approximate Relations
Angular Spectrum
2. 2
1. α N b b 1 .
.
sin( θ ) 3
N a( θ ) . exp ( k r. σ r. sin( θ ) ) 2
4 2
8 π krσz
. . . ( 1 β . cos( θ ) )
7
N a( θ a ) = 2.297 10
Error in approximate relation
N i( θ a ) N a( θ a )
= 0.228
N i( θ a )
266
Further small angle approximation
α . N b2 . b 12 θ3
N aa( θ ) . . exp ( k r. σ r. θ ) 2
2
8 π k r σ z θ2
. . . 1
γ2
7
N aa( θ a ) = 2.297 10
Integrate above to yield the exponential-integral function
k r. σ r 2
x x = 17.546
γ
1 α . N b2 . b 12
N a1 . . ( exp( x ) . Ei( x ) . ( 1 x) 1)
2. 4 π . k r. σ z
5
N a1 = 9.225 10
Insert expression for Ei
α . N b2 . b 12 (n 1 )! .
N a2 . ( 1 )n . ( 1 x) 1
n
4. 2. π . k r. σ z n
x
5
N a2 = 9.225 10
267
Approximate sum by using first and second term
α . N b2 . b 12 1 1
N a3 . .( 1 x) 1
4 2 π krσz
. . . . x x2
6
N a3 = 1.129 10 Incorrect
This simplifies to
α . N b2 . b 12 1 2
N a4 .
x
4 2 π krσz
. . . .
6
N a4 = 1.129 10
268
8.4: STRONG FOCUSING IN PLANAR UNDULATORS
The need to maintain a well focused beam is critical to successful operation
future short wavelength, high–gain FELs. This Appendix examines alternating
gradient (AG) sextupole focusing in planar undulators and compares it to
quadrupole undulator focusing. The equations of motion for a single electron in
an undulator field with a strong sextupole component are examined. Analytic
and smooth approximation solutions are provided for AG sextupole focusing. It
is shown that the mean electron longitudinal velocity can be kept constant through
each focusing and defocusing section, but that the velocity differs between these
sections. The effects of this stepwise velocity modulation, as well as the beam
size variation, are explored computationally and compared to theory. Examples
using the proposed SLAC 4 nm FEL, the UCLA 10.6 µm FEL as well as a Paladin
based device are also given.
8.4.1: Focusing Schemes
Quadrupole focusing has been used on a number of undulators. Typically,
external quadrupole magnets in a FODO lattice are superimposed over the
undulator field (see Figure 8.1). Use of external magnets requires that no permeable
materials be used in the undulator: hybrid undulators are not compatible with
269
external magnets. Alternatively, the quadrupoles can be interspersed with
undulator sections. Regardless of the arrangement, quadrupole focusing differs
from natural focusing in that it causes electron velocity modulation during betatron
oscillations. The effect is to modulate the phase of the electrons relative to the
undulator and optical beam. These oscillations can degrade FEL performance by
effectively debunching or detrapping the electrons (see Section 8.4.2). The reduction
in gain may be undesirable in single pass amplifiers.
Figure 8.1: A cartoon of an undulator magnet with external quadrupole focusing.
Canting the undulator poles has been used to achieve quadrupole like
focusing without external magnets (see Figure 8.2). By introducing a slight tilt to
each undulator pole, a focusing field is introduced near the axis; however, this
270
method can suffer from the same problems as external quadrupole focusing. In
addition, the canting can require more complicated undulator mechanics.
Figure 8.2: An undulator magnet with canted poles. The canting angle as well as
the perspective are exaggerated for clarity.
Solenoidal confinement has been considered for high current (~ kA) low
energy (~ MeV) beams. Unfortunately, off–axis electrons drift transversely.
Rotational stabilization has been suggested as a way of countering this problem.
The requirement that the solenoid field be higher than the undulator field would
make this technique impractical for many systems. Also, the need for an external
magnet extending the undulator length is undesirable (costly). Thus, solenoidal
confinement is not desirable or effective for high–energy beams or in undulators
with high peak fields.
Ion focusing is a promising concept for undulator beam transport (see
Figure 8.3). The idea of introducing a plasma into the beamline has been criticized
in the literature; however, the potential benefits are great. An ion channel can
offer strong focusing without phase modulation. Unfortunately, beam erosion,
271
ion column collapse and ion–hose instabilities (as well as others) need to be
avoided.
Undulator
Plasma Beam
Ion
Beam
Channel
Expelled
Electrons
Figure 8.3: Ion focusing for an FEL is depicted in this diagram.
An elegant focusing scheme based on the converse to optical guiding has
been theoretically derived. Given a sufficiently strong optical field, the electron
beam can be guided. The focusing is similar to natural focusing in its effect. The
mutual focusing effect would be most pronounced in a high power system. Thus,
an inverse FEL would be a candidate to observe this phenomenon.
The following Sections of this Appendix review Scharlemann’s original
scheme, and propose an extension to include alternating gradient or strong
focusing. The theory which is developed is then applied to examples.
272
Figure 8.4: A sketch of the lower half of an undulator employing Scharlemann’s
shaped poles.
Sextupole focusing satisfies the phase preservation requirement of an FEL;
however, if it is constant gradient, it is weak focusing. The idea of shaping the
poles of a planar undulator to provide focusing was examined by Scharlemann.
Proper shaping of the pole faces can symmetrize the natural planar undulator
focusing (see Figure 8.4). This concept has proven itself in application. Sextupole
focusing avoids the problems and complexities associated with other focusing
schemes, and can produce focusing up to the strength of the natural vertical
focusing. This concept has proven itself in application. The major drawback of
this scheme is the weakness of focusing, as is discussed in Section 2.6.2.
8.4.2: Strong Sextupole Focusing
A calculation of the equations of motion for alternating–gradient focusing
is presented in this Appendix. The inspiration for this treatment comes from
Scharlemann’s work on weak sextupole focusing and the calculation by Dattoli
and Renieri using a smallness parameter to describe the effective horizontal
defocusing sextupole strength.
273
Implementing strong focusing with sextupoles, which requires alternating
between focusing and defocusing sections, can overcome the natural focusing
strength limitation. A set of poles which focus in, say, x and defocus in y is
followed by a set which defocuses in x and focuses in y. This is analogous to
strong focusing with quadrupoles. Since sextupole fields are quadratic, the off–axis
orbit taken by the design electron moves through a region with a linear gradient,
giving rise to a quadrupole–like focusing (this is an example of the feed down
effect in beam dynamics). One constraint is that the design orbit (and velocity) of
the electrons must match closely in the two types of undulator sections. It has
already been verified that this is the case in a weak focus (Scharlemann) and a
weak defocus (Dattoli and Renieri). It is still necessary to show that the results
are in fact valid for strong focusing.
The geometry used in the calculations is as follows: The beam propagates
along the positive z–axis with the undulations occurring in the x–z plane and the
undulator field along with natural focusing occurring in the y–z plane.
We begin, as Scharlemann did, with a normalized undulator magnetic
field which satisfies the Maxwell equations, and has a symmetric dependence on
the transverse distance from the undulator axis:

bk
b = xˆ 0 x sinh(k x x)sinh(k y y)cos(k uz)
ky
+ yˆ b0 cosh(k xx)cosh(k y y)cos(kuz) (8.1)
b0ku
− zˆ cosh(kx x)sinh( ky y)sin(k uz)
ky
where kx and ky are the focusing wavenumber in x and y, respectively,
e 2π
b0 = 2 Bu = a is the normalized undulator field and the remainder of the
mc λu u
notation is as given in Table 1.5. The Maxwell equations additionally require that
274
k u2 = kx2 + ky2 . (8.2)
When the focusing strength in one plane exceeds the natural focusing strength,
the strong focusing regime is entered, and k (x,y)>k u, k(y,x) becomes imaginary.
A derivation of the field to arbitrary order is also possible, but analysis
shows that the correction terms beyond second order are negligible (for known
FEL parameters). For small k xx and k yy the field may therefore be approximated
by
bx = b0k x2 xycos(kuz)
 k 2x x2 ky y 
2 2
. (8.3)
b y = b0  1 + +  cos(k uz)
 2 2 
The electron equations of motion are straightforward to derive:
( c
x˙˙ = z˙ by − y˙ bz ,
γ
)
c
˙y˙ = ( x˙ bz − z˙bx ), (8.4)
γ
( c
z˙˙ = y˙ bx − x˙ by .
γ
)
Here the dot is used to indicate a derivative with respect to time. A natural scale
length of the problem is the undulator period; by separating the fast oscillations
(those occurring at the undulator frequency) from the secular behavior, it is
possible to simplify the equations. Following Scharlemann we define r(x,y,z)=r0+r1
where r0 is constant over the undulator period (the slow betatron oscillation) and
r1 varies within a period (the fast undulator oscillation). Then, the equations of
motion can be written, to leading order, as
275
cz˙ 0
x˙˙0 =b ,
γ y
cz˙
x˙˙1 = 0 by , (8.5)
γ
cx˙ c z˙
˙y˙0 = 1 bz − 0 bx ,
γ γ
where the brackets ( ) indicate averaging over an undulator period. For planar
undulators, the term ÿ1 can be neglected at this order in the analysis. It is easiest
to integrate the expression for x1 while inserting the expression for the magnetic
field to yield
c  k 2x 2 k y y0 
2 2
x˙ 1 = b0 1 + x 0 +  sin(ku z) . (8.6)
γk u  2 2 
Averaging and simplification gives the desired solution for the equations
of motion for the three cases of weak focusing, strong focusing in x, and strong
focusing in y:
x˙˙0 + c 2 kβx2 x 0 ≈ 0 
 for kx,y<ku, (8.7)
y˙˙0 + c 2 kβ2y y0 ≈ 0
x˙˙0 + c 2 kβx2 x 0 ≈ 0 
 for ky >ku, (8.8)
y˙˙0 − c 2 kβ2y y0 ≈ 0
x˙˙0 − c 2 kβx2 x 0 ≈ 0 
 for kx >ku, (8.9)
y˙˙0 + c 2 kβ2y y0 ≈ 0
where the notation
b0
k β ( x,y ) = k (8.10)
2γk u (x ,y )
has been introduced. The constraints on the transverse focusing betatron
wavenumbers for these three cases follow from Equation 2.174:
e
k β2x + k β2y = b , (8.11)
2mc 2γ 2 0
276
e
k β2x − k β2y = b , (8.12)
2mc 2γ 2 0
e
−kβ2x + kβ2y = b . (8.13)
2mc 2 γ 2 0
Note that for the alternating gradient cases the focusing strengths relative
to the natural case are |kx |/k u and |ky |/k u for the x and y directions, respectively.
The above sets of equations can each be integrated by using the relation between
the derivatives with respect to time and distance (z). Scharlemann has shown
that the additional term coming from the longitudinal acceleration (velocity
modulation) does not contribute to the average focusing, and the relation
d/dt=vz(d/dz) is a good approximation. Now it remains to evaluate the average
transverse velocity,
β⊥2 =
1
(
x˙ 2 + x˙ 02 + y˙ 02 .
c2 1
) (8.14)
The x1 term is averaged by noting that <sin2 (kuz)>=1/2. Then, eliminating
higher order terms leaves
x˙ 21 =
c 2b02
2γ 2ku2
(
1+ kx2x02 + ky2 y02 . ) (8.15)
The above equation holds for all three cases considered. So, the average transverse
velocities for each case become:
β⊥2 =
b02
2γ 2k u2
( )
1 + k x2 x2β + k 2y yβ2 for kx,y<ku, (8.16)
β⊥2 =
b02
2γ 2k u2
( )
1 + k x2 x2β − k 2y y2β for ky >ku, (8.17)
β⊥2 =
b02
2γ 2k u2
( )
1 − k x2 x2β + k 2y y2β for kx >ku, (8.18)
277
where xb and yb are the amplitudes of the transverse betatron oscillation, i.e.,
x0=xb sin[kbxz+φx] for a focusing section, or x0=xbsinh[k bxz+φx] for a defocusing section.
It is now possible to see that each <β⊥ 2> is constant. That is, an electron’s velocity
averaged over an undulator period is constant through a betatron oscillation
within a particular case of focusing. This indicates that the (longitudinal) phase
of the electrons within a ponderomotive “bucket” is not modulated. Hence, one
would expect that sextupole focusing is not deleterious to electron bunching and
FEL gain. In fact, as was discussed in the Introduction, the gain is expected to be
higher since the beam density remains greater under focus.
The above statements hold true for weak (constant gradient) focusing. For
strong focusing they apply only within a particular focusing section. In the
transition from, for example, horizontal focusing (Equation 8.17) to defocusing
(Equation 8.18), the velocity is not, in general, constant. Since it can be shown
that the betatron amplitudes xb and yb are constant for each electron and remain
the same across a lens boundary, one can see that β⊥2 is, in general, different in
defocusing and focusing sections. It is not feasible to make the velocities equal in
the two types of sections for all electrons: any realistic beam will have a spread in
the betatron amplitudes. However, this shortcoming does not in itself necessarily
imply that strong sextupole focusing is problematic.
Indeed, phase–space mixing and possible detrapping are possible at the
boundaries between focusing and defocusing sections. This situation inspires an
analogy to tapered undulators. Theory indicates that the tapering should be
performed gradually, but practical considerations can necessitate stepped tapering.
278
Likewise, it is expected that if the focusing is not too strong the FEL gain will not
be adversely affected.
The maximum phase change, ∆ψ, experienced across a focusing/defocusing
section boundary is given by
kr
2 ∫
∆ψ ≈ ∆ β⊥2 dz . (8.19)
The integral is trivial since the velocity is constant (Equations 8.16–8.18), and we
are ignoring the effects of actual energy change induced by this phase change.
Ignoring motion in y and integrating over one focus (or defocus) section of length
Lq yields
2
k b2  k 
∆ψ = r 03  x  ε nβ Lq , (8.20)
2 γ  ku 
where
γ xβ2
β = (8.21)
εn
is the average focusing betafunction and has units of inverse length. The Examples
section uses this result to evaluate the effectiveness of sextupole AG focusing.
In the smooth approximation, if the average betafunction is the order of
the gain length (β~Lg ), then FEL operation (power output) is maximized.
Perturbations caused by the focusing on a scale longer than the gain length
should not be significant. The next section examines an approximate solution to
AG sextupole focusing and addresses the issue of focusing strength, to allow for
a quantitative analysis of this scheme.
279
8.4.3: Matrix Description of AG Focusing
It is useful and straightforward to solve for the focusing effects of the AG
sextupoles by using the transfer matrix description of the linear equations of
motion. It is possible to use this method by substituting the equivalent quadrupole
strength of the sextupole channel. This analysis will elucidate the effects of focusing
on the beam size variation.
The transfer matrices for half of the focus (F) and defocus (D) section in a
strong focusing lattice are defined by this prescription as follows

 θ 1 θ 
 cos 2 kβ
sin 
2
F= 
−kβ sin θ θ 
cos
 2 2 
(8.22)
 θ 1 θ
 cosh 2 kβ
sinh 
2
D= 
 k sinh θ cosh
θ 
 β 2 2 
respectively, where θ=kb Lq and Lq is the effective quadrupole length of each section.
Then, the total transfer matrix for one cell (one period of the focusing channel) is
given by
F F  D D
M1 = D  M2 = F  , (8.23)
2 2  2 2
where a cell is started from the middle of a focus (defocus) section. Then,
 1 
 cosθ coshθ (sinθ coshθ + sinhθ )
M1 = kβ ,
 
 −kβ ( sinθ coshθ − sinhθ ) cosθ coshθ 
(8.24)
 1 
cosθ coshθ (sinθ + sinhθ cosθ )
M2 =  kβ
.
 −kβ ( sinθ − sinhθ cosθ) cos θcoshθ 
280
The parameter µ, the phase advance per cell, is then defined by
2cos µ = Tr(M) = 2cosθ coshθ.. For small angles (µ<π/4) we may expand this
transcendental expression to yield, in the smooth approximation,
θ2
µ≈ . (8.25)
3
The average betafunction can be defined to be a geometric average of the
minimum and maximum betafunctions: βmax(min) sin µ = [M1(2) ]1,2 . This produces
the relation
2 3
β = . (8.26)
k β2Lq
We note at this point the strong dependence on kb, and that this betafunction
is 3 times larger than that for a thin lens FODO channel. Although this implies
a larger beam (and so less dense), the variation of the beam size is smaller than in
the thin lens case. This is advantageous in an FEL since large fluctuations in the
beam size may be deleterious to gain and optical beam quality. The above relation
can be used to show that in a given FEL the phase change of Equation 8.19 is
approximately constant for small µ. The resulting relation can be written as
2 3ε nk r
∆ψ ≈ . (8.27)
γ
According to the FEL resonance condition, kr scales as γ 2 implying that ∆ψ scales
with γ. This indicates that high energy, short–wavelength devices may be unable
to use AG sextupoles. Note that the scaling of this result is expected from Equation
2.128. In fact, the limit on the emittance differs only by a factor of 3 . Thus,
Equation 8.27 imposes a more stringent limit on the emittance than the 1D
no–focusing limit.
281
In order to make the strong focusing based on sextupole fields attractive,
it must be clearly superior to weak focusing. This requires that
β < βweak , (8.28)
where the quantity β weak is defined as the betafunction obtained for a round beam
using Scharlemann’s pole shaping scheme. Let the ratio between the strong and
weak betatron wavenumber be Rk βstrong / kβ weak . Then k βstrong = Rkβnatural / 2 and
Equation 8.28 becomes

1/2 1/2
 2 3   4 3γ 
R>  =  . (8.29)
 kβweak Lq   b0Lq 
This requirement is sometimes an overestimate of the ratio R because of
the previous requirement that the smooth approximation be valid. To show what
happens when this requirement is lifted, consider the case of 90° phase advance
per cell (µ=π/2). Then,

1 1 π /2
βmin = βmax = e ,
kβ kβ
(8.30)
1 π / 2 2.2
β= e ≈ .
kβ kβ
Notice that the betafunction in this case is independent of the quadrupole
length (assuming Lq>lu). In fact, the ratio R is independent of all parameters and it
is only required that
R>2.2. (8.31)
The variation of the undulator magnetic field by a strong sextupole
component may be large enough to degrade the FEL synchronism condition, and
this effect must be examined. The fractional variation of the magnetic field over
the beam size can be expressed as
282
(k σ ) (Rk uσ x )
2 2
 ∆B 
  = x x = , (8.32)
 B  beam 2 4
where σx is the transverse beam size. Similarly, the variation of the magnetic field
over the undulation orbit is

2
 ∆B  1  Rb 
  =  0 . (8.33)
 B  2  γk u 
undulator
80
Saturation Length [m]
76
72
68
64
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
Phase Advance per Cell [°]
Figure 8.5: Results of numerical simulations show the length of undulator required
to reach saturation as a function of the strong sextupole focusing phase advance
per cell. Large phase advances imply poor FEL performance.
As the examples in the last section will show, requiring that these variations
be small compared to unity is not unreasonable. However, a large phase advance
283
per cell can introduce problems. While a phase advance per cell of 90 degrees
minimizes the average beam envelope, it creates large fluctuations in the beam
size. Numerical simulations confirm that when the phase advance is large and
hence the beam is modulated a great deal, the FEL action will be degraded (see
Figure 8.5). This statement also holds for quadrupole focusing. Thus, in practice,
the phase advance per cell must be smaller than 90°.
8.4.4: Implementing AG Sextupole Focusing
Figure 8.6: Sextupole AG focusing for planar undulators using pole shaping. A
set of poles which focus (F) is followed by a set of poles which defocus (D) in
order to form a FD lattice. This is repeated (FDFD…FD) the length of the undulator.
Sextupole focusing can be implemented by machining a parabolic curve
into the permeable metal pole pieces of a hybrid undulator (see Figure 8.6). It
might also be possible to achieve an effective sextupole component by simpler
methods. One scheme recently discussed is the use of side arrays of permanent
magnets to shape the undulator field. Another idea under consideration is the
use of planar permanent magnets (see Figure 8.7).
284
Beam pipe
Figure 8.7: Permanent magnets configured in planar arrays to produce a sextupole

field on–axis.
8.4.5: Numerical Examples
Three examples of high–gain FEL amplifiers are now discussed to show
when AG sextupole focusing in undulators is potentially useful. The proposed
SLAC–based x–ray FEL poses a number of challenges, including the need to
propagate the electron beam along ~50 meters of undulator. Table 8.1 presents
the nominal beam and undulator parameters. The natural round–beam focusing
betafunction is ~80 m, whereas the design gain length requires a ~10 m betafunction.
So, weak focusing is insufficient to maintain the desired beam size and attain the
design gain length.
285
Table 8.1: The nominal beam and undulator parameters for the proposed SLAC
x–ray FEL.
Parameter Value
Electron Beam Energy 7 GeV
Beam Emittance (normalized, rms) 3 mm-mrad
Peak Current 2500 A
Pulse Length 160 fs
Undulator magnetic field 0.8 T
Radiation wavelength 4 nm
FEL parameter 1.7 x 10-3
AG Phase variation ∆ψ ~2
We consider implementing strong focusing in this undulator. An average
betafunction of 7.8 meters can be obtained with a focusing section length of 6 m
and R=21.4 when a 90 degree phase advance per cell lattice is used. Note that this
section length is about equal to a gain length, and thus the deleterious effects of
the sudden change in z–velocity of the electrons at the transitions might be
mitigated. It should be noted that in this example, the fractional variation of the
magnetic field over the beam cross section is small ( ~ 2 × 10−4 ), and the fractional
variation of the undulator field over the undulating design orbit is even smaller
(~ 4 ×10 −5 ). However, the large beam size variation would still be harmful. Thus,
we examine focusing channels with smaller phase advances per cell. For µ~10°,
an average beta of ~5 meters can be achieved with 0.5 m sections and R=70. The
phase variation of Equation 8.27 is of the order of 2π; strong sextupole focusing is
not ideal for these parameters. It is useful to compare the results of numerical
286
simulations with semi–analytic theories. Figure 8.8 shows the results of such a
comparison. As expected, the sextupole focusing shows poorer performance than
the smooth approximation analytic theory. Both the theory and simulations attempt
to account for 3D effects, but to simplify comparison the energy spread of the
beam was taken to be zero.
4.5
Numerical Gain Length
Power Gain Length [m]
Theoretical Gain Length
4.0
3.5
3.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.
βavg [m]
Figure 8.8: Sextupole focusing in the SLAC based x–ray FEL. Analytic results
using a smooth approximation are plotted for comparison.
We now examine an example with a much lower beam energy: the PBPL
FEL. While the initial design calls for a single undulator section 60 cm long,
future plans include adding a second section for a total length ~120-160 cm. The
need for focusing might then become significant.
287
The short–period modified hybrid undulator has flat poles (see Section
6.1.1). The natural vertical focusing has an equilibrium betafunction of 10.5 cm,
which if converted to the equivalent weak focusing round beam case would yield
a function of 14.8 cm. While the phase variation (Equation 8.27) is small (~0.3),
strong focusing would yield only a modest improvement in the average
betafunction because of the short undulator period. The ~9 cm betafunction
attainable for reasonable phase advance per cell would only yield a modest increase
in FEL performance.
1.5
1.0
0.5
Numerical Gain Length

Theoretical Gain Length
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
βavg [m]
Figure 8.9: Sextupole focusing performance calculated numerically for the Paladin
undulator using a SLAC beam is compared to the results from analytic theory
with a smooth approximation. The natural (weak) focusing case would be off the
vertical scale on this plot.
288
The third example is based on the use of the Paladin undulator at SLAC.
This example uses a similar beam but with lower energy than the first example
(see Table 8.2). The reduced beam energy decreases the phase variation across
the focusing/defocusing boundaries enabling the AG sextupole focusing to
approach the smooth approximation performance (see Figure 8.9).
Table 8.2: One set of parameters for use of the Paladin undulator at SLAC.
Parameter Value
Electron Beam Energy 1 GeV
Beam Emittance (normalized, rms) 3 mm-mrad
Peak Current 2000 A
Pulse Length ~200 fs
Undulator magnetic field 0.38 T
Radiation wavelength 52 nm
FEL parameter 5 x 10-3
AG Phase variation ∆ψ ~0.6
8.4.6: Comparison of Sextupole to Quadrupole Focusing
The code TDA3D was modified to allow for sextupole focusing. This code
solves the averaged FEL equations in 3D and takes into account known phenomena
for the regime studied here. The sextupole focusing is accounted for in the
289
simulation by modifying the vector potential of the undulator (au). Quadrupole
focusing is simulated by adding a term to the particle equations of motion.
The example parameter set discussed here is the SLAC based x–ray FEL.
The parameters are given in Table 8.2. It serves as a good test case due to the long
length of the undulator and low beam emittance. Notice that applying Equation
8.28 yields a betafunction of 5 meters for peak FEL performance.
In order to compare reliably sextupole and quadrupole focusing, identical
lattices were calculated (same period, betafunction and phase advance per cell).
Monoenergetic beams were used (no energy spread) in a focus/defocus (FD)
lattice (no drifts). A study of the effect of the phase advance per cell was first
done. Typically, a phase advance per cell of 90 degrees is used to minimize the
average beam envelope. However, this creates large fluctuations in the beam
size. As expected, simulations confirm that when the phase advance is large and
hence the beam is modulated a great deal, then the FEL action is degraded. To
avoid this added effect, subsequent comparisons were performed with a phase
advance per cell of about ten degrees.
Figure 8.10 shows the results of a series of simulations. Three sets of data
points are plotted: quadrupole lattice, sextupole lattice and 3D semi–analytic
calculations. The quadrupole set is clearly the best. As expected, there is an
optimal focusing strength. Peak quadrupole performance occurs close to, but not
precisely at the theoretically predicted 5 meter betafunction. A figure of merit for
the effect of focusing on an FEL is given by the variation of the phase over a
betatron period. This is related to the extent of detrapping of electrons from the
290
ponderomotive well. For quadrupole cases, this effect is small. For the sextupoles
used in this example, detrapping becomes significant for a betafunction ≤ 5 meters.
4.4
Gain Length (Theory)
4.2
Sextupole
4.0 Quadrupole
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
0 2 4 6 8 10
Focusing Beta [m]
Figure 8.10: A comparison of quadrupole and sextupole focusing in an FEL.
Analytic results are also plotted for comparison. The emittance–limited optimal
focusing is indicated by the vertical line (at 5 meters).
8.4.7: Strong Focusing Conclusions
Alternating–gradient sextupole undulator focusing has been examined for
use in free electron lasers. Sextupole fields may be an attractive option for strong
focusing provided that variation of the longitudinal velocity and transverse
291
positions of the beam particles are minimized. The work presented here has
arrived at three limits which an alternating gradient focusing scheme for an FEL
must satisfy:
1) The velocity (or, equivalently, phase) modulation between

focusing and defocusing sections must be small.
2) The beam size variation (or phase advance per cell) must be
small.
3) The fractional variation of the magnetic field across the beam

should be small.
Also, while not a fundamental limit, AG focusing should be stronger than weak
(or natural) focusing to be practical.
292
8.5: CALCULATIONS FOR THE EMITTANCE SLITS
The following are direct entries and results from a MathCAD worksheet. The
first section is composed of inputs; parameters chosen for the PBPL system:
Calculations needed for the design of the slit based emittance measurement system (MKS units).
Inputs
I 200 Beam current [Amps]
E 16 Beam energy [MeV]
6
ε n 5 . 10 Normalized emittance [m-rad]
(desired to measure)
3
σ 1.5. 10 Beam initial size [m]
6
d 50 . 10 The slit width [m]
6 Slit separation, should be smaller than initial beam size,
w 750 . 10 much larger than slit width.
L d 0.70 Actual drift distance [m]
The next section are numerical constants used by the worksheet:

Constants
4
I0 1.7. 10 Alfven current
ρ 9 Iron density
l 5 . 10 3 Depth of stopping iron.
Lr 1.4. 10 2 Radiation length of Fe.
Some useful parameters are calculated next:
293
Calculated parameters
dedx 1.5. ρ. 100 Minimum ionizing stopping power for iron
E
γ Lorentz factor
.511 γ = 31.311
εn
ε Physical emittance ε = 1.597 10 7
γ
ε
φ Angular divergence of beam at focus φ = 1.065 10 4
σ
Finally, the figures of merit are calculated:

Relations and Checks
The ratio of the space charge to the emittance terms in the rms
envelope equation before the beam goes through the slits:
2
2 . I. σ
R0
2 R 0 = 67.632 >>1 => SC dominated
I 0 . γ. ε n
This is the ratio of the space charge to the emittance terms in the rms
envelope equation for the beamlets after the beam goes through the slits.
R0 2 must <<1, or...

R . d
R = 0.043 R<1 = 1
3 σ
Maximum tolerable slit width, shoud be many times actual slit width.
dm ε n. 3 . π. γ. I 0 d m = 3.8 10 4 d m> d = 1
2 I
Fraction of energy lost in stopper:

l
η dedx . η = 0.422 η > 0.2 = 1
E
294
RMS multiple scatter
θ 21 . E . 1 1 θ = 1.032 θ > 0.2 = 1

E .
L r dedx 1 η
Ratio of beam rms angle compared to slit acceptance:
a l.φ a = 0.011 a< 1 = 1

d
Optimum drift length to phoshor.
L do d. w L do = 0.691
2 . 3 0.25 . φ
Ratio of of image at phosphor to the slit width, greater than 1 for resolution.
φ
L d. . 12 = 5.163
d
Overlap of beamlets at phosphor, should be much less than one.

φ
L d. . 2 = 0.199
w
Ratio of the maximum contribution to the rms
angular width from the space charge, to the emittance part.
2. I Ld d
Rb . . R b = 0.224
2 εn w
I 0. γ
295
8.6: BEAM TRAJECTORY CALCULATION
A MathCAD worksheet was used to find the optimal betafunction for
maximizing the average beam current through the undulator:

Beam Trajectory Calculator:
calculates the average current density traversing an undulator
Inputs
I 200 Peak Current [Amps]
ε n 5. 10 6 Normalized Emittance [m-rad]
γ 33 Beam Energy [mc2]
a u 1.05 Undulator Parameter [-]
λ u 0.015 Undulator Period [m]
L u 0.6 Undulator length [m]
β0 0.01 , 0.02 .. 2 Beta-star (initial beta)
α0 1 Alpha (initial divergence)

Calculations
γ.λ u
βn Natural Betafunction [1/m]
2. π . a u
s 2
β( s ) β 0. 1 Betafunction along undulator
β0
I
J( s ) Peak current density [Amps/m^2]
εn
. β n. β( s )
γ
296
Lu
1 .
J avg( β 0 , L u ) J( s ) d s
Lu 0
γ
J avg( β 0 ) I. . ln L
u β 02 L u2 . β0 ln( β 0 ) . β0
L u. ε n. βn
9
8 10
J avg β 0 , 0.3
J avg β 0 , 0.6 4 10 9
J avg β 0 , 1.2
0
0.5 1 1.5 2
β0
3
2
γ 1 β0
f( β 0 , L u ) I. . . ...
L u. ε n. βn β02
Lu 2
Lu β0 2
Lu 2
1 ln L u β 02 L u2 1 1 . ln( β 0 )
+ .
2 2
β0 β0 β0
root( f( x , 0.3 ) , x ) = 0.09037 r( y ) root( f( x , y ) , x ) y 0.3 .. 2
root( f( x , 0.6 ) , x ) = 0.181 0.4
root( f( x , 1.2 ) , x ) = 0.361

r( y )0.2
r( L u )
= 0.301
Lu 0
0 0.5 1 1.5
y
297
8.7: IR OPTICS CALCULATOR
Inputs are taken; the optical beam radius is obtained from the TDA3D simulation.
Optics and Detector Calculator for UCLA IR FEL
Inputs
TDA gives HWHM

w 0 2.355 . 380. 10 6 Optical beam radius [m] w0 =2*sigma
L1 1 Distance of optic from exit of undulator [m]
λ 10.6 . 10 6 Radiation wavelength [m]
d 0.3 . 10 3 Detector diameter [m]

Calcs
π . w 02 Rayleigh range
Zr
λ
Z r = 0.237
λ
θb Optical beam divergence [rad]
π w
.
0
3
θ b = 3.77 10
λc 2. w 0. 2. θ b Coherence length
5
λ c = 1.35 10
λ c< λ = 0 Check that we are in coherent (diffraction) limit
L1
.w 3
w lens 0 Size of beam at lens w lens = 3.77 10
Zr
298
f1 L1 First lens focal length
d
M Required magnification
.
2 w 0 ignoring diffraction
f2 M. f 1 Second lens focal length f 2 = 0.168
299
8.8: BLACK BODY BACKGROUND ESTIMATION
User inputs are taken, some of which are redundant.

Winston Cone Calculator
Inputs
λ r 20. 10 6 FEL radiation wavelength [m]
r d 1.75 . 10 3 detector radius [m]
large radius of cone [m]

r c 9.5 . 10 3
radius of detector window [m]
r w 0.5 . 2.54 . 10 2
length of cone [m]
l c 2.6 . 2.54 . 10 2
distance from detector to window [m]
l dw 3. 2.54 . 10 2
response time of the detector [s]
τ d 5. 10 9
room temperature [K]
T 300
cutoff wavelength of detector [m]
λ u 30. 10 6
minimum sensative wavelength of detector [m]
λ l 2. 10 6
Constants
h 1.05459 . 10 27 h-bar in erg-sec

c 2.997 . 108 speed of light in m/sec
k 1.38066 . 10 16 Boltzman's constant in erg/°K

Calculated Quantities
2. π . c
ω r FEL radiation frequency
λr
The angular distributions are calculated.
300
Field of view quantities
Cone opening angle

2. r w 180
θ c( l cone ) atan θ c( l c ) = 1.19 θ c( l c ) . = 68.199
l dw l cone π
Field of View solid angle
θ c( l c )
FOV 2. π . sin( θ ) d θ FOV = 3.95
0
Distance in Space for integration cone
R c. τ d R = 1.498
Integration Volumedefined by cone-window solid angle and detector response time
R
Volume r2 d r. FOV Volume = 4.43
0
Black body radiation
Energy per unit volume [ergs/m^3]

ω l
h ω3
U( T ) . dω
π 2 . c3 h. ω
exp . 1
k T U( T ) = 54.595
ω u
Energy [ergs] in all of cone (neglecting isoltropic nature of blackbody
G( T ) U( T ) . Volume G( T ) = 241.858
Energy [Joules]
5
E( T ) G( T ) . 10 7 E( T ) = 2.419 10
Equivelent Numer of Photons at FEL wavelength

G( T )
N( T ) 15
h. ω r N( T ) = 2.436 10
The volume integral for the Winston cone is calculated:
301
New fangled volume integral- this assumes that of all the black body photons radiated in the
cylinder defined by the FOV, only the ones emitted in a solid angle subtended by the cone
aperture get collected.
R
θ c( l cone )
r cone
atan
r
sin( θ c ) d θ c
0
NFVI( l cone, r cone ) 2. π . r2 . sin( θ ) . dθ dr
2
0
0
4
NFVI( l c , r c ) = 1.32 10
Energy of collected photons [ergs]
H( T ) U( T ) . NFVI( l c , r c ) H( T ) = 0.007
Equivelent number of photons at FEL radiation wavelength

H( T )
N 2( T )
h. ω r N 2( T ) = 7.259 10
10
5
SHOT NOISE FLUCTUATIONS OF DC BACKGROUND: N 2( T ) = 2.694 10
And, the volume integral for the aperture (cold stop) is calculated:
Comparison with COLD STOP
You only wish your volume integral was this cool-the above integral modified for a cold stop as
opposed to a Winston cone. As black body radiators approach the FOV cone edge, the angle
subtended by the detector goes to zero.
R
rc
atan
r 2
rc
2.
Cool 2. π . r sin( θ ) . 1 cos θ atan dθ dr
r
0
0
7
Cool = 1.716 10
302
Energy of photons collected assuming a cold stop instead of a cone
6
J( T ) U( T ) . Cool J( T ) = 9.366 10
Equivelent number of photons

J( T ) 7
N 3( T ) N 3( T ) = 9.433 10
h. ω r
SHOT NOISE
3
N 3( T ) = 9.712 10
303
8.9: ADDITIONAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS
8.9.1: Radiation Shielding Bunker
The PBPL bunker serves to protect the human occupants of the laboratory
as well as those in adjacent rooms. The primary design criterion used was to
allow only near–background levels of radiation outside the bunker walls while
the accelerator is producing the highest levels of radiation inside [247]. The final
specifications were arrived at using established empirical guidelines as well as
conservative estimates of the machine performance. Standard–density
steel–reinforced concrete was chosen for the bunker construction. Concrete is a
common choice for neutron shielding bunkers. Concrete offers both protection
from thermal neutrons as well as x–rays. It was preferred over other materials
such as water, Borated–Polyethylene and higher density concrete. This decision
was based on factors such as cost, availability of qualified construction crews,
and earthquake safety.
The physical space of the bunker was chosen to be as large as possible
while still allowing for a control room and RF equipment within the rooms
allocated to PBPL. The final inner dimensions of approximately 9 m long, 3 m
304
wide and 2.5 m high (30' ×10' ×8.5' ) allows sufficient space for the full beamline,
as well as walkways for human access.
The shielding door (see Figure 8.11) was built to accommodate large pieces
of equipment being transported into and out of the bunker while still providing
the same shielding as the fixed concrete bunker walls. A sandwich of steel and
Borated–Polyethylene was chosen to match the gamma–ray and neutron
shielding–capacity of concrete. Additionally, the door had to be structurally sound
in order to withstand the stress caused by repeated openings and closings.
Polyethylene
Steel
Figure 8.11: A cross–section of the shielding door showing the layers of material.
The bunker was also designed to accommodate the signal and control
cables used for the accelerator. Other penetrations for the waveguide, laser,
experiment signal and air conditioning were also incorporated, and are illustrated
in Figure 8.12.
305
31'-2"
Air in Wire penetrations Air out

4'-5" Door
6'-6"
3'-7"
Figure 8.12: A side diagram of the shielding bunker showing some of the
penetrations.
8.9.2: Facilities Support
The needs of the accelerator and related experiments were taken into account
during the initial construction of PBPL. These needs lead to direct requirements
on the facilities. While the details of the design process are not appropriate for
inclusion here, the final specifications are recorded for reference.
The laboratory is temperature controlled using an air cooling system
independent of the building and based on a chilled water system provided
throughout UCLA [248]. One “three ton” cooler is used for the laser room in
order to achieve short term (hour) temperature stability of ±1° centigrade. A
second unit of larger capacity (“four tons”) is used for the laboratory and bunker
mainly to remove heat produced by equipment. The result of the independent
cooling system is that the laboratory is insensitive to building temperature swings
caused by occupancy changes. Further, the ambient pressure of the laboratory is
slightly higher than the remainder of the building, which along with micron air
306
filters serves as an effective dust barrier – an important consideration for stable
laser operation. The effects of the pressure difference between the laser room and
bunker on the laser transport are unknown.
In an effort to isolate the laboratory from outside electrical noise (and
vice–a–versa), a transformer was installed in the laboratory to generate all electrical
needs [249]. The building mains provide 200 A of three–phase 480 VAC.
Three–phase 208 VAC and 120 VAC are produced in the laboratory and distributed
to various subpanels (see Figure 8.13). All outlets are isolated–ground type with
independent ground lines running to their respective subpanel to minimize ground
loops. Each electrical outlet was placed on an independent circuit (fuse) to prevent
the failure of one piece of equipment from disrupting the operation of others.
Finally, an uninterruptible power supply powers and isolates the computers.
sp
raceway
sp
DOOR
sp sp sp
Figure 8.13: The layout of the PBPL electrical system. Sub panels are indicated by
an “sp”.
Cooling water is provided through the building de–ionized closed circuit
system. Large (2" ID) pipes provide cooling water to the bunker. Plumbing boards
with filters, regulators, control valves and flow monitors provide hookups for the
307
accelerator as well as the experiments. Temperature control for the gun and linac
are provided by independent closed circuit heat baths.
The environmental stability, such as temperature, has played a significant
role in PBPL operations by determining such factors as long term stability and
component reliability.
8.9.3: Alignment System
During assembly the beamline components need to be aligned to each
other and to a reference line. The precision of alignment depends on the given
component and on the beam parameters. Typically, beampipe alignment is
noncritical (ignoring wakefields and resistive wall instabilities), while diagnostics,
accelerating structures and optics have stringent alignment tolerances. A standard
alignment system involves beamline components mounted on translation stages
or other movable platforms, with optical methods used to survey the objects.
Recent systems have implemented electronic sensors, interferometers and in situ
alignment using the beam itself as a diagnostic.
The PBPL system relies on conventional machining to achieve the desired
alignment. The system has only one degree of freedom – along the beamline axis.
The transverse position and rotation are fixed by solid supports placed on optical
tables and butted against linear bearings (see Figure 8.14). This system has the
distinct advantage of not requiring expensive optical alignment tools. It also
dispenses with tedious alignment procedures and costly fiducial marks having to
308
be placed on all objects. This fixed alignment technique, of course, suffers from
not being correctable in situ (i.e., objects and brackets must be removed from the
beamline to be reworked). It also requires careful machining, and is limited by
the precision of the machining, optical tables and linear bearings. Thus, this
method is best suited to short systems with tolerances no better than standard
machining capabilities ( ±0.001" = 10− 3 in = 2.54 × 10− 5 m= 25µm ).
Beamline Center
Beamline Center
Typical Mount
10.000
5.875
Ø 1.250
1.750
Optical Table
Figure 8.14: A cartoon of the fixed alignment system employing optical tables, an
alignment rod and machined brackets and supports.
The overall tolerance of the PBPL beamline can be estimated from the
minimum spot size:

εnβ
σ=
γ (8.34)
309
where the notation is indicated in Table 1.5. Here we assume a normalized emittance
of 5x10-6 m–rad and beam energy of ~17 MeV ( γ ≈ 33 ) and the focusing betafunction
equivalent to the undulator’s 0.11 m. Then, the beam size (one standard deviation)
is given by σ~130 µm. The alignment tolerance of the beamline can then be
crudely estimated by requiring it to be smaller than the minimum beam size.
Hence, beamline components should be aligned to within better than ±100 µm of
the ideal axis.
A more careful estimate of the alignment tolerance required can be
performed using beam propagation codes (matrix solvers) such as TRACE3D
and TRANSPORT. Having established the mechanical requirements of the
beamline, we turn to the requirements inside the beamline.
8.9.4: Vacuum System
Producing vacuum levels of 10-6 to 10 -9 Torr in beamlines several meters
long is common and relies on standard commercially available technology. Vacuum
systems still present technical and practical hurdles, however. Maintaining a
reliable vacuum system with thousands of seals, dozens of valves, feedthroughs
and windows is not without challenge.
The PBPL vacuum system was built to be as flexible as possible to allow
for rapid week–to–week changes and upgrades. With this need in mind, most
components used were “off–the–shelf” commercial items. The main features of
the vacuum system are listed below:
310
♦ All nonmagnetic stainless–steel components
♦ Knife–edge (Conflat™) seals with copper gaskets
♦ Majority of beamline >1" ID (2.75" flanges)
♦ Ion pumps
♦ Isolation Gate valves
♦ Dry Nitrogen back–fill valves
♦ Pump down ports throughout beamline
♦ Ionization gauges for monitoring gun, linac and waveguide
♦ Portable turbomolecular pumpdown station
♦ Portable helium leak checker
The system typically maintains vacuum levels in the mid 10-9 torr near the
gun, low 10-8 torr between the gun and linac and inside the linac, and mid 10 -7 to
high 10-7 torr in the remainder of the beamline. The waveguide vacuum system is
separated from the beamline using RF windows, but uses similar ion pumps and
maintains levels of <10-8 Torr near the pumps.
In order to achieve the UHV levels required in the gun, linac and interceding
section, bake–outs were performed using resistive heater tapes. This method
proved to be an endless source of problems. The heater tapes were not controlled
by thermocouples, causing occasional overheating and required constant vigilance
on the part of the operator. The fiberglass insulating material is a skin irritant to
the installers and a dust problem for the laser optics. Experience and frustration
eventually lead to using Nomex™ strips for insulation. This material is
nonirritating, nontoxic and nonflammable. However, it still produces dust and
cannot withstand as high temperatures as can Fiberglass. Further, experience has
311
shown that moderate bake–outs at < 150° C are sufficient to produce UHV. Due
to the proximity of magnets and diagnostics in the remainder of the beamline it
was deemed unwise and unnecessary to bake the system beyond the linac.
8.9.5: Control and Data Acquisition
To CAMAC
Patch Panels
ADC Binary In
DAC Binary Out
Monitoring
Control
Power
BPM Actuators
Supplies
Interlock/
Monitor
RF Magnets ?
Vacuum
Figure 8.15: The PBPL control system
The control area for the PBPL accelerator is designed for human operators
[250]. This should be contrasted with the remainder of the lab, which is designed
312
for the specific systems to operate optimally. The control system is based on
computers, electronics and human operators (see Figure 8.15. A central console
houses the main control computer and video systems (see Figure 8.16). Additional
racks house power supplies, CAMAC crates [251], RF controls, safety systems
and experimental hardware.
CAMAC Rack Control Console Front
Solenoid Control Store 1 Store 2

Slit motion control
Magnet Supply Rack D1 D3 D2 D4

Degaussing Switcher
Scope Switcher 1 Switcher 2
Gate valve / counter

Quad Supplies mic / camera
Patch Panel
Vacuum
Patch Panel Computer
Master Camera
Patch Panel
Monitor
Dipole Supplies Timing
CAMAC Crate
QDC, Delay, Motion… Switcher 2 decoder
Steering Magnet Supplies
TBC
Computer
VCR
Cables + Future
Current Supply Crate Area
Video
Printer Drawer
Degaussing Supply (Bipolar)
Figure 8.16: The control room main console, CAMAC rack and power supplies.
8.9.5.1: Computer System
PBPL employs three Macintosh type computers for data acquisition, control
and general computational needs. Two of the computers are in the control area
and are connected through GPIB (IEEE 488) interfaces to the CAMAC crates and
scopes. The third computer is dedicated to laser diagnostics. Each of the computers
313
is equipped with a video digitizing card with 256 gray levels (8 bits). Two of the
computers are also equipped with general purpose analog and digital input/output
boards. The computers run LabVIEW software for the data acquisition and control.
The three computers are directly connected to a building–wide ethernet–based
local area network (LAN). Printing and communications are handled though the
LAN (see Figure 8.17).
Ethernet
Computers
LabVIEW
Software
Video Printers,
subsystem Peripherals
GPIB
Oscillioscopes, Trigger
etc.
CAMAC Crate
Figure 8.17: The control computer topology.
The main computer is a Quadra 950 with 24 MB of RAM, 1 GB drive. The
memory is required for the extensive video analysis performed on this machine.
The computational power of the Quadra was generally found to be sufficient for
the laboratory’s needs.
314
8.9.5.2: Timing
The timing and triggering of the accelerator is difficult to think of as a
system, since it is spread across the laboratory and is comprised of several seemingly
disjoint components. Nevertheless, these components serve the same goal: to
provide pulses and gates to the various time–critical devices. The basic design
relies on a master oscillator and precision delay units to provide synchronization
and critical timing, while a series of trigger generators and delay boxes provide
less stringent timing pulses.
Thyratron Driver
Kilowatt Amp
Master Trigger Vacuum Trigger
Safety Interlock
Generator Interlock Distribution Box
Video System
Diagnostic Gate
Figure 8.18: The PBPL trigger system.
A block diagram of the triggering system is given in Figure 8.18. Following
the diagram from the top, the master oscillator (MO) operates at ~ 38.08 MHz
and is provided by the laser modelocker (see Section 4.6.1). The MO provides
signal for the laser system and, after seventy–five times frequency multiplication,
to the RF system. By using the MO to modelock the laser as well as provide a low
315
level RF source, the two systems are assured of being synchronized. In fact,
timing jitter needs to be reduced further and this is accomplished using a feedback
system. The tolerable timing jitter can be estimated by requiring that the electron
beam energy jitter (shot to shot) be small compared to the beam energy or
comparable to the energy spread. A good rule of thumb is that the timing (or
phase) jitter be less than one degree of RF phase. In our case (2.856 GHz) this
works out to be approximately one picosecond.
In addition to the RF synchronization, fast (low jitter) timing signals are
often required for diagnostics such as streak cameras. These are provided by a
digital delay unit (Stanford Research Systems Model 535). The unit provided
pulses of various widths. It is triggered by the laser regenerative amplifier at a
repetition rate of 5 Hz. The regenerative amplifier, in turn, is locked to the 60 Hz
power line “zero crossing.”
Master
Video
Diagnostics
KW Amp
Thyratron
Time
Figure 8.19: Timing sequence for a few signals on the RF and control systems.
316
The remaining signals are considered slow, and are only critical on the
microsecond timescale. These are provided through a set of delay boxes and gate
generators. A timing scale for some of the signals is shown in Figure 8.19.
It should be noted that since the regenerative amplifier is designed and
tuned to operate at the fixed repetition rate of 5 Hz, the laser triggering rate is not
adjusted. Rather, the RF triggering rate is controlled by using delays to skip
trigger signals produced from the laser.
8.9.5.3: Magnet System
The component that required the most effort and computer control hardware
was the magnet system. This is rather ironic considering that the magnets have
the least requirements in terms of data rate and signal bandwidth. Nevertheless,
the need to precisely control over thirty magnets of three different types presented
a challenge. This system does have some stringent requirements:
♦ Current control to better than ±0.005 A.
♦ Ability to degauss each magnet
♦ Knowledge of precise magnetic field or current
♦ Need to slowly ramp supply current to magnets
♦ Ability to save and restore settings
♦ Manual override for direct user control
Meeting these requirements at available budget levels required a
combination of systems. Power supplies were both commercially obtained as
317
well as fabricated in–house. CAMAC DACs were used to control the power
supplies, while ADCs were used to read back the current (via a shunt resistor) or
the manual control setting. For the dipole spectrometer, a Gaussmeter (Hall probe)
was used to accurately read back the field.
UniPolar 10A UniPolar 15A
For Quads For

Computer
dI/I<10^-3 Dipoles
CAMAC
DAC
Patch Panel
UniPolar 10A BiPolar Supply

UniPolar 15A
For Quads For

dI/I<10^-3 For Dipoles degaussing
Degaussing
Control Box
Bipolar Current Controllers

Quads Dipoles
Steering Magnets
Figure 8.20: The PBPL magnet system.
318
In order to degauss the magnets, a separate bipolar supply and switching
box was utilized. During degaussing, a magnet is switched from its normal supply
to the degaussing supply, the degaussing routine is run (under computer control),
and finally the magnet is switched back to its normal supply. This system saved
the cost of having to buy all bipolar supplies, while still allowing for quality
degaussing. Figure 8.20 is a schematic of the overall magnet system.
8.9.5.4: Video System
Video has proven to be a valuable data standard for laboratory use. High
bandwidth, large dynamic ranges and low costs have driven many laboratories
to rely on video data acquisition systems. PBPL has made extensive use of video:
over 15 cameras and 20 channels of video are implemented.
Daystrum
Computer TBC VCR Decoder Displays 4
Printer
MemScan Store 1 DA 1 Displays 1

Switcher 1
Bunker
Cameras
Comp. Cntrl. Store 2 DA 2 Displays 2
Laser Room Switcher 2
TheQ
Displays 3
Computer
Computer control and analysis section

Figure 8.21: The PBPL video system.
The overall video system layout is shown in Figure 8.21. All video signals
are routed through the control console (via a patch panel) and the inputs are sent
319
into two switchers. Output from switcher 1 (computer controllable) is sent through
a distribution amplifier (DA) to various display monitors and the computer
digitizer. Switcher 2 is used to display a second source, select video to be recorded
by a VCR, or digitized on the auxiliary control computer. The video signals can
also be routed through a freeze frame unit which is synchronized with the system
trigger.
Synchronization of the video system to the RF/Laser timing system is
done indirectly. A master camera is used to generate a genlock (composite video)
signal which is distributed to the remaining cameras. The master camera is line
locked (to the 60 Hz). Since the RF/Laser timing system is also line locked, the
video system is synchronous. This arrangement was chosen for convenience and
cost. However, it suffers from not being directly triggered by the RF/Laser (master
oscillator) timing system. Thus, when a change is made to the system timing, the
video system must be rephased.
The Q
Computer
Saturnus2
Computer
TBC
Master Trigger IN Standard Pulse
(Line Locked) Gate/Delay Generator
Store 1
Store 2
Decoder
Figure 8.22: The video trigger distribution system.
320
The video system also requires a number of triggers for the various
components. These triggers are generated from the master trigger box and routed
through a gate generator and pulse distribution amplifier (see Figure 8.22).
8.9.5.5: Control and Acquisition Capabilities
The previous sections provided a brief description of some of the important
subsystems. We have covered how the systems work, now we discuss what the
system can do. While it is not appropriate to describe the entire control system
here, it is useful to list the main capabilities.
Controls:
♦ Diagnostic actuators (software interlocked)
♦ Video channel selection (based on diagnostic number)
♦ Remote camera lens aperture
♦ Magnet power supplies [252]
♦ Magnet degaussing (software sequence through all magnets)
♦ RF–laser phase (electronic and manual)
♦ RF power and phase to gun and linac
♦ RF trigger rate
♦ Stepping motors (slits, optics, etc.)
♦ Safety interlock (doors, radiation, etc.) [253]
Acquisition:
♦ Magnet currents (settings readback)
♦ Dipole field
♦ RF power levels
321
♦ Charge readings: ICT, Faraday cups
♦ Video digitization and analysis
XYZZY
322
Acronym Glossary
ADC Analog to Digital Converter
AG Alternating Gradient
AFEL Advanced Free Electron Laser (Los Alamos)
APLE Average Power Laser Experiment (Boeing)
ATA Advanced Test Accelerator (Livermore)
ATF Accelerator Test Facility (Brookhaven)
AU Arbitrary Units
BNL Brookhaven National Laboratory
BPM Beam Position Monitor
CAA Center for Advanced Accelerators
CAMAC Computer Automated Measurement and Control
CCD Charge Coupled Device
CEBAF Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility
CKX Chin, Kwan–Je, and Xie
CTR Coherent Transition Radiation
DA Distribution Amplifier
DAC Digital to Analog Converter
dB Decibel
DESY Deutsches ElektronenSYnchrotron
EDM Electrical Discharge Machining
323
FD Focus–Defocus
FEL Free Electron Laser
FELIX A cartoon cat
FODO Focus, Drift, Defocus, Drift
FOV Field Of View
FWHM Full Width at Half Maximum
GB Giga–Byte
GPIB General Purpose Instrument Bus
IBM International Business Machines
ICT Integrating Current Transformer
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IFEL Inverse Free Electron Laser
IR Infra–Red
IRFEL Infra–Red Free Electron Laser
KMR Kroll, Morton and Rosenbluth
LAN Local Area Network
LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory
LBL Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
LCLS Linac Coherent Light Source (SLAC)
LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MS MicroSoft, also Multiple Sclerosis — a disease whose

symptoms one mimics after using the prior MS’s products.
Nd:YAG Neodymium: Yittrium Aluminum Garnet
OFHC Oxygen Free, High Conductivity
PBPL Particle Beam Physics Laboratory
324
PWT Plane Wave Transformer
RF Radio Frequency
RMS Root Mean Square
SASE Self Amplified Spontaneous Emission
SCSI Small Computer Systems Interface
SDI Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”) [254]
SI System International
SLAC Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
SNR Signal–to–Noise Ratio
SVEA Slowly Varying Envelope Approximation
TR Transition Radiation
UCLA University of California at Los Angeles
UHV Ultra High Vacuum
UV Ultra–Violet
VCR Video Cassette Recorder
VI Virtual Instrument
WKB Wentzel, Kramer and Brillouin
WYSIWYG What You See Is What You Get
XUV eXtreme Ultra Violet
325
References
[1] J. M. J. Madey, Stimulated emission of bremsstrahlung in a periodic magnetic

field. Journal of Applied Physics, 1971. 42(5): p. 1906-13.
[2] Ninth International Free Electron Laser Conference. in Ninth International Free
Electron Laser Conference. 1987. Williamsburg, VA, USA.
[3] C. A. Brau, Free-electron lasers. 1990, Boston, MA, USA: Academic Press.
xi+420.
[4] W. B. Colson and A. M. Sessler, [Free electron lasers]. Annual review of

nuclear and particle science. Vol.35, ed. J. D. Edited by: Jackson, H. E.
Edited by: Gove, and R. F. Edited by: Schwitters. 1985, Palo Alto, CA,
USA: Annual Reviews. 25-54.
[5] H. Motz, Undulators and 'free-electron lasers'. Contemporary Physics, 1979.

20(5): p. 547-68.
[6] R. M. Phillips. History of the ubitron. in Ninth International Free Electron

Laser Conference. 1987. Williamsburg, VA, USA.
[7] R. M. Phillips. The history of the free electron laser. in Conference Record -
Abstracts. 1990 IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science (Cat.
No.90CH2857-1). 1990. Oakland, CA, USA: Ieee.
[8] W. Crookes, On radiant matter : a lecture delivered to the British Association for
the Advancement of Science, at Sheffield, Friday, August 22, 1879. 1879, [s.l.:
s.n. 30 p.
[9] W. C. Röntgen and C. D. Leake, Eine neue Art von Strahlen. 1896, Würzburg:
Stahel'schen K.B. Hof und Universitätsbuch und Kunsthandlung. 9 p.
[10] H. Winick, Synchrotron radiation sources : a primer. 1994, River Edge, N.J.:
World Scientific. xix, 507 p.
[11] E. M. Rowe and F. E. Mills, Tantalus I: A dedicated storage ring synchrotron

radiation source. Particle Accelerators, 1973. 4(4): p. 211-227.
326
[12] K. W. Robinson, Ultra Short Wave Generation. Nuclear Instruments and
Methods in Physics Research, 1985. A239: p. 111-118.
[13] L. R. Elias, et al., Observation of stimulated emission of radiation by relativistic

electrons in a spatially periodic transverse magnetic field. Physical Review Letters,
1976. 36(13): p. 717-20.
[14] W. B. Colson, One-body electron dynamics in a free electron laser. Physics

Letters A, 1977. 64(2): p. 190-2.
[15] W. B. Colson, One-body analysis of free electron lasers. Novel sources of coherent
radiation, ed. S. F. Edited by: Jacobs, M. Edited by: Sargent, III, and M. O.
Edited by: Scully. 1978, London, UK: Addison-Wesley. 157-96.
[16] S. K. Ride and W. B. Colson, A free-electron laser in a uniform magnetic field.

Applied Physics, 1979. 20(1): p. 41-50.
[17] N. M. Kroll, P. L. Morton, and M. N. Rosenbluth, Free-electron lasers with

variable parameter wigglers. IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics, 1981. 17(8):
p. 1436-68.
[18] I. B. Bernstein and J. L. Hirshfield, Amplification on a relativistic electron

beam in a spatially periodic transverse magnetic field. Physical Review A (General
Physics), 1979. 20(4): p. 1661-70.
[19] P. Sprangle and C.-M. Tang. Formulation of non-linear free electron laser
dynamics with space charge effects and spatially varying wiggler. in Fourth
International Conference on Infrared and Millimeter Waves and their Applications.
1979. Miami Beach, FL, USA: Ieee.
[20] A. Gover and Z. Livni, Operation regimes of Cerenkov-Smith-Purcell free electron

lasers and TW amplifiers. Optics Communications, 1978. 26(3): p. 375-80.
[21] G. T. Moore, High-gain small-signal modes of the free-electron laser. Optics

Communications, 1984. 52(1): p. 46-51.
[22] R. Bonifacio, C. Pellegrini, and L. M. Narducci, Collective instabilities and

high-gain regime in a free electron laser. Optics Communications, 1984. 50(6):
p. 373-8.
[23] J. B. Murphy and C. Pellegrini, Generation of high-intensity coherent radiation

in the soft-X-ray and vacuum-ultraviolet region. Journal of the Optical Society
of America B (Optical Physics), 1985. 2(1): p. 259-64.
[24] M. Cornacchia, et al. [Design concepts of a storage ring for a high power XUV
free electron laser]. in Free Electron Lasers. Proceedings of the Seventh International
327
Conference. 1985. Tahoe City, CA, USA.
[25] T. Clancy, The cardinal of the Kremlin. 1988, New York: Putnam. 543 p.
[26] A. Kosh, An Introduction to Vorlon Technology. Organic Technology, 2259.

1(1): p. 1.
[27] D. Prosnitz, et al. Electron laser facility (ELF) at the LLNL ETA. in Bendor Free
Electron Laser Conference. 1982. Bendor, France.
[28] E. T. Scharlemann, et al. [Comparison of the Livermore microwave FEL results

at ELF with 2D numerical simulation]. in Free Electron Lasers. Proceedings of
the Seventh International Conference. 1985. Tahoe City, CA, USA.
[29] S. V. Benson, et al. [The Stanford Mark III infrared free electron laser]. in Free
Electron Lasers. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference. 1985. Tahoe
City, CA, USA.
[30] S. V. Benson, et al. A review of the Stanford Mark III infrared FEL program. in
Eleventh International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1989. Naples, FL, USA.
[31] S. V. Benson, et al. Status report of the Stanford Mark III infrared free electron
laser. in Ninth International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1987. Williamsburg,
VA, USA.
[32] R. Warren, Star Wars and the FEL. 1995: Unpublished. 92.
[33] G. A. Deis, et al. [A long electromagnetic wiggler for the PALADIN free-electron
laser experiments]. in Tenth International Conference on Magnet Technology
(MT-10). 1987. Boston, MA, USA.
[34] A. R. Harvey, R. W. Johnson, and M. E. Morrison. [Production techniques for

the PALADIN free-electron laser wiggler magnets]. in Tenth International
Conference on Magnet Technology (MT-10). 1987. Boston, MA, USA.
[35] W. M. Fawley. [Physics design for the ATA tapered wiggler 10.6 mu FEL
amplifier experiment]. in 1985 Particle Accelerator Conference: Accelerator
Engineering and Technology. 1985. Vancouver, BC, Canada.
[36] T. J. Orzechowski, et al. Free-electron laser results from the advanced test
accelerator. in 1988 Linear Accelerator Conference Proceedings (CEBAF-Report-
89-001). 1988. Newport News, VA, USA: Continuous Electron Beeam
Accelerator Facility.
[37] J. T. Weir, et al. Results of the PALADIN experiment . in Free-Electron Lasers II.
1989. Paris, France.
328
[38] D. W. Feldman, et al. Operation of the APEX photoinjector accelerator at 40
MeV. in 1992 Linear Accelerator Conference Proceedings (AECL-10728). 1992.
Ottawa, Ont., Canada: AECL Research.
[39] A. H. Lumpkin, et al. Initial electron-beam characterizations for the Los Alamos
APEX facility. in 13th International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1991. Santa-
Fe, NM, USA.
[40] P. G. O'Shea, et al. Performance of the APEX free-electron laser at Los Alamos
National Laboratory. in Fourteenth International Free Electron Laser Conference.
1992. Kobe, Japan.
[41] P. G. O'Shea, et al. Demonstration of ultraviolet lasing with a low energy electron
beam. in Fifteenth International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1993. The Hague,
Netherlands.
[42] P. G. O'Shea, et al., Ultraviolet free-electron laser driven by a high-brightness

45-MeV electron beam. Physical Review Letters, 1993. 71(22): p. 3661-4.
[43] J. M. Slater, et al. Progress of the Average Power Laser Experiment (APLE)
program. in Fourteenth International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1992. Kobe,
Japan.
[44] J. B. Romero, et al. Boeing/Los Alamos average power free electron laser
demonstration. in Intense Laser Beams. 1992. Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[45] C. G. Parazzoli, et al. Average power laser experiment (APLE) design. in 13th
International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1991. Santa-Fe, NM, USA.
[46] K. E. Robinson, et al. Development of a 10-m wedged-pole undulator. in

Proceedings of the 1989 IEEE Particle Accelerator Conference. Accelerator Science
and Technology (Cat. No.89CH2669-0). 1989. Chicago, IL, USA: IEEE.
[47] D. H. Dowell, et al. Final results of the Boeing and Los Alamos grazing incidence
ring-resonator free electron laser experiment. in 13th International Free Electron
Laser Conference. 1991. Santa-Fe, NM, USA.
[48] K. Batchelor, et al. Operation of the Brookhaven National Laboratory Accelerator

Test Facility. in 1992 Linear Accelerator Conference Proceedings (AECL-10728).
1992. Ottawa, Ont., Canada: AECL Research.
[49] R. L. Sheffield, B. E. Carlsten, and L. M. Young. High-brightness linac for the

Advanced Free-Electron Laser Initiative at Los Alamos. in 1992 Linear Accelerator
Conference Proceedings (AECL-10728). 1992. Ottawa, Ont., Canada: AECL
Research.
329
[50] K. C. D. Chan, et al. Compact free-electron laser at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory. in Short-Wavelength Radiation Sources. 1991. San Diego, CA, USA.
[51] R. L. Sheffield, E. R. Gray, and J. S. Fraser. The Los Alamos photoinjector

program. in Ninth International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1987.
Williamsburg, VA, USA.
[52] T. C. Marshall. Optical guiding and sideband experiments from the Columbia
Raman free electron laser. in Symposium on Non-Neutral Plasma Physics. 1988.
Washington, DC, USA.
[53] J. S. Wurtele, R. Chu, and J. Fajans, Nonlinear theory and experiment of collective
free electron lasers. Physics of Fluids B (Plasma Physics), 1990. 2(7): p. 1626-34.
[54] M. E. Conde, G. Bekefi, and J. S. Wurtele. A 35 GHz free electron laser

amplifier operating with high guide magnetic field. in Conference Record - Abstracts.
1990 IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science (Cat. No.90CH2857-1).
1990. Oakland, CA, USA: Ieee.
[55] J. Fajans, R. Chu, and J. S. Wurtele, Parametric studies of free-electron laser

nonlinear ponderomotive trapping buckets. IEEE Journal of Quantum
Electronics, 1991. 27(12): p. 2546-9.
[56] R. L. Swent, H. A. Schwettman, and T. I. Smith. The Stanford picosecond FEL

center. in Short-Wavelength Radiation Sources. 1991. San Diego, CA, USA.
[57] Y. C. Huang, et al. Compact far-IR FEL design. in 13th International Free
Electron Laser Conference. 1991. Santa-Fe, NM, USA.
[58] R. H. Pantell. Design and performance of a far infrared, free-electron laser. in

Coherent Radiation Processes in Strong Fields. First International Conference.
1990. Washington, DC, USA.
[59] J. F. Schmerge, et al., The free-electron laser as a laboratory instrument. IEEE

Journal of Quantum Electronics, 1995. 31(6): p. 1166-71.
[60] F. Aghamir, et al. The UCLA IR-FEL. in Conference Record - Abstracts. 1990
IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science (Cat. No.90CH2857-1). 1990.
Oakland, CA, USA: Ieee.
[61] J. W. Dodd, et al. Saturnus: the UCLA compact infrared free-electron laser
project. in Intense Microwave and Particle Beams II. 1991. Los Angeles, CA,
USA.
[62] S. Hartman, et al. Photocathode driven linac at UCLA for FEL and plasma
wakefield acceleration experiments. in Conference Record of the 1991 IEEE Particles
330
Accelerator Conference. Accelerator Science and Technology (Cat. No.91CH3038-
7). 1991. San Francisco, CA, USA: Ieee.
[63] J. W. Dodd, et al. Saturnus: the UCLA infrared free-electron laser project. in
Conference Record of the 1991 IEEE Particles Accelerator Conference. Accelerator
Science and Technology (Cat. No.91CH3038-7). 1991. San Francisco, CA, USA:
Ieee.
[64] G. Baranov, et al. The UCLA IR FEL project. in Fourteenth International Free
Electron Laser Conference. 1992. Kobe, Japan.
[65] L. R. Elias and G. Ramian. Design of the UCSB FEL electron beam system. in
Free-Electron Generators of Coherent Radiation. 3rd Workshop on Free-Electron
Laser Devices. 1981. Sun Valley, ID, USA: Addison-Wesley.
[66] A. Amir, I. Boscolo, and L. Elias. FIR radiation of the UCSB-FEL. in Eighth
International Conference on Infrared and Millimeter Waves. Conference Digest.
1983. Miami Beach, FL, USA: Ieee.
[67] L. R. Elias and G. J. Ramian. Status report of the UCSB FEL experimental
program. in Free-Electron Generators of Coherent Radiation. 1983. Orcas Island,
WA, USA.
[68] C. A. Brau. The Vanderbilt University Free-Electron Laser Center. in 13th

[69] W. D. Andrews, et al. Development of the Vanderbilt Compton X-ray facility. in

13th International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1991. Santa-Fe, NM, USA.
[70] P. A. Tompkins, et al. Initial operation of the Vanderbilt free electron laser. in
Conference Record of the IEEE Particle Accelerator Conference. Accelerator Science
and Technology (Cat. No.91CH3038-7). 1991. San Francisco, CA, USA: Ieee.
[71] K. W. Berryman and T. I. Smith. A flexible far-infrared FEL user facility. in

Sixteenth International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1994. Stanford, CA,
USA.
[72] V. N. Litvinenko, et al. Duke storage ring FEL program. in Short-Wavelength

Radiation Sources. 1991. San Diego, CA, USA.
[73] V. N. Litvinenko, J. M. J. Madey, and N. A. Vinokurov. UV-VUV FEL

program at DUKE storage ring with OK-4 optical klystron. in Proceedings of the
1993 Particle Accelerator Conference (Cat. No.93CH3279-7) Proceedings of
International Conference on Particle Accelerators. 1993. Washington, DC, USA:
Ieee.
331
[74] R. J. Bakker, et al. Commissioning the FELIX bunching system. in Twelfth
International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1990. Paris, France.
[75] D. Oepts, et al., Felix project status report December 1991. Assoc. Euratom-FOM,
Inst. Plasmafys., Nieuwegein, Netherlands. 1991).
[76] D. Oepts, A. F. G. van der Meer, and P. W. van Amersfoort. The free-
electron-laser user facility FELIX. in Sixth International Conference on Infrared
Physics (CIRP 6) Topical Conference on Infrared Lasers. 1994. Ascona,
Switzerland.
[77] M. Billardon, et al. [Status of the Orsay FEL experiment]. in Eighth International
Free Electron Laser Conference. 1986. Glasgow, UK.
[78] M. E. Couprie, et al. Free-electron-laser oscillation on the super-ACO storage

ring at Orsay. in Eleventh International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1989.
Naples, FL, USA.
[79] F. Glotin, et al. First lasing of the CLIO FEL. in EPAC92.Third European
Particle Accelerator Conference. 1992. Berlin, Germany: Editions Frontieres.
[80] J. M. Ortega, et al. CLIO: collaboration for an infrared laser at Orsay. in Tenth
International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1988. Jerusalem, Israel.
[81] G. J. Ernst and J. C. Goldstein. Performance of the SASE amplifier of the

TEU-FEL project. in 13th International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1991.
Santa-Fe, NM, USA.
[82] G. J. Ernst, et al. Status of the 'TEU-FEL' project. in 13th International Free
Electron Laser Conference. 1991. Santa-Fe, NM, USA.
[83] G. J. Ernst, et al. The "TEU-FEL" project. in Sixth International Conference on

Infrared Physics (CIRP 6) Topical Conference on Infrared Lasers. 1994. Ascona,
Switzerland.
[84] A. Arensburg, et al. The Israeli tandem electrostatic accelerator FEL-status report.
in Sixteenth International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1994. Stanford, CA,
USA.
[85] A. Gover, et al. The Israeli tandem electrostatic accelerator FEL-status report. in
Fourteenth International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1992. Kobe, Japan.
[86] R. Bonifacio, et al., Physics of the high-gain FEL and superradiance. Rivista del
Nuovo Cimento, 1990. 3(9): p. 1-69.
[87] R. Bonifacio, et al., New effects in the physics of high-gain free-electron lasers; a
proposed experiment and possible applications. Rivista del Nuovo Cimento,
332
1992. 3(11): p. 1-52.
[88] K. Batchelor, et al. A microwiggler free-electron laser at the Brookhaven Accelerator

Test Facility. in Eleventh International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1989.
Naples, FL, USA.
[89] J. S. Fraser, et al. [Photocathodes in accelerator applications]. in New Developments

in Particle Acceleration Techniques. Proceedings. ECFA-CAS/CERN-IN2P3-
IRF/CEA-EPS Workshop (CERN 87-11). 1987. Orsay, France: Cern.
[90] I. Ben-Zvi. Performance of photocathode RF gun electron accelerators. in

Proceedings of the 1993 Particle Accelerator Conference (Cat. No.93CH3279-7)
Proceedings of International Conference on Particle Accelerators. 1993.
Washington, DC, USA: Ieee.
[91] P. E. Oettinger, et al. Photoelectron sources: selection and analysis. in Ninth

International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1987. Williamsburg, VA, USA.
[92] K.-J. Kim and Y.-J. Chen. RF and space-charge induced emittances in laser-driven
RF guns. in 1988 Linear Accelerator Conference Proceedings (CEBAF-Report-
89-001). 1988. Newport News, VA, USA: Continuous Electron Beeam
Accelerator Facility.
[93] R. L. Sheffield, et al. RF photoelectron gun experimental performance. in 1988

Linear Accelerator Conference Proceedings (CEBAF-Report-89-001). 1988.
Newport News, VA, USA: Continuous Electron Beeam Accelerator Facility.
[94] R. W. Warren and C. J. Elliott. New system for wiggler fabrication and testing.
in Adriatico Research Conference. Undulator Magnets for Synchrotron Radiation
and Free Electron Lasers. 1987. Trieste, Italy: World Scientific.
[95] C. Pellegrini, et al. A 2 to 4 nm high power FEL on the SLAC linac. in Fourteenth
International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1992. Kobe, Japan.
[96] F. Aghamir, et al. Saturnus: the UCLA high-gain infrared FEL project. in Twelfth
International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1990. Paris, France.
[97] G. Travish, Towards Short Wavelength FELs Workshop: Highlights and

Implications for PBPL. UCLA Department of Physics. PBPL Tech Note #56,
1993).
[98] C. Pellegrini. UV free electron lasers for synchrotron radiation sources. in

Proceedings of the Japanese/USA Seminar on Synchrotron Radiation Facilities.
1979. Honolulu, HI, USA.
[99] I. Ben-Zvi, et al. Proposed UV-FEL user facility at BNL. in 13th International
333
Free Electron Laser Conference. 1991. Santa-Fe, NM, USA.
[100] B. E. Newnam, Extreme ultraviolet free-electron laser-based projection lithography

systems. Optical Engineering, 1991. 30(8): p. 1100-8.
[101] V. N. Litvinenko. Storage ring FELs and the prospects. in Twelfth International
Free Electron Laser Conference. 1990. Paris, France.
[102] C. Pellegrini. Short wavelength FELs based on self amplified spontaneous emission.
in Free-Electron Lasers and Applications. 1990. Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[103] J. Arthur, et al. The LCLS: a fourth generation light source using the SLAC
linac. in 5th International Conference on Synchrotron Radiation Instrumentation.
1994. Stony Brook, NY, USA.
[104] R. Tatchyn. Infrared (IR) vs. X-ray power generation in the SLAC Linac Coherent
Light Source (LCLS). in Proceedings of the 1993 Particle Accelerator Conference
(Cat. No.93CH3279-7) Proceedings of International Conference on Particle
Accelerators. 1993. Washington, DC, USA: Ieee.
[105] R. Tatchyn. Photon pulse filtering and modulation based on the extreme temporal
compression and correlated energy spread of the electron bunches in the SLAC
Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS). in Proceedings of the 1993 Particle Accelerator
Conference (Cat. No.93CH3279-7) Proceedings of International Conference on
Particle Accelerators. 1993. Washington, DC, USA: Ieee.
[106] R. Tatchyn and P. Pianetta. X-ray beam lines and beam line components for the
SLAC Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS). in Proceedings of the 1993 Particle
Accelerator Conference (Cat. No.93CH3279-7) Proceedings of International
Conference on Particle Accelerators. 1993. Washington, DC, USA: Ieee.
[107] H. Winick, et al. Short wavelength FELs using the SLAC linac. in Eighth National
Conference on Synchrotron Radiation Instrumentation. 1993. Gaithersburg, MD,
USA.
[108] H. Winick, et al. A 2-4 nm Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) using the SLAC
linac. in Proceedings of the 1993 Particle Accelerator Conference (Cat.
No.93CH3279-7) Proceedings of International Conference on Particle Accelerators.
1993. Washington, DC, USA: Ieee.
[109] K.-J. Kim, et al. Performance characteristics, optimization, and error tolerances of
a 4 nm FEL based on the SLAC linac. in Proceedings of the 1993 Particle Accelerator
[110] G. Travish, et al. Parametric study of an X-ray FEL. in Sixteenth International
334
Free Electron Laser Conference. 1994. Stanford, CA, USA.
[111] G. Travish and J. Rosenzweig, Strong sextupole focusing in planar undulators.

Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research, Section A
(Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment), 1994.
345(3): p. 585-93.
[112] G. Travish, et al. The UCLA high gain infrared FEL. in Sixteenth International
[113] J. B. Rosenzweig, RF Photoinjectors: A Guide to the Performance Requirements

and Demands on Laser Systems. UCLA Department of Physics. PBPL Tech
Note #73, 5/14/1994(1994).
[114] T. M. Tran and J. S. Wurtele, TDA-a three-dimensional axisymmetric code for

free-electron-laser (FEL) simulation. Computer Physics Communications, 1989.
54(2-3): p. 263-72.
[115] K. R. Crandall and L. Young, PARMELA, , LANL: Los Alamos.
[116] J. B. Murphy and C. Pellegrini. Introduction to the physics of the free electron
laser. in Frontiers of Particle Beams. Proceedings of a Topical Course. 1986.
South Padre Island, TX, USA: Springer-Verlag.
[117] E. T. Scharlemann, [Wiggle plane focusing in linear wigglers]. Journal of Applied

Physics, 1985. 58(6): p. 2154-61.
[118] A. M. Sessler and D. Vaughan, [Free-electron lasers]. American Scientist,

1987. 75(1): p. 34-43.
[119] R. Bonifacio and B. W. J. McNeil. Slippage and superradiance in the high-gain

FEL. in Ninth International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1987. Williamsburg,
VA, USA.
[120] R. Bonifacio, F. Casagrande, and C. Pellegrini, [Hamiltonian model of a free

electron laser]. Optics Communications, 1987. 61(1): p. 55-60.
[121] G. Dattoli, et al., Progress in the Hamiltonian picture of the free-electron laser.
IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics, 1981. 17(8): p. 1371-87.
[122] R. C. Davidson and H. S. Uhm, Self-consistent Vlasov description of the free

electron laser instability. Physics of Fluids, 1980. 23(10): p. 2076-84.
[123] W. M. Sharp and S. S. Yu, Two-dimensional Vlasov treatment of free-electron

laser sidebands. Physics of Fluids B (Plasma Physics), 1990. 2(3): p. 581-605.
[124] E. D. Courant, C. Pellegrini, and W. Zakowicz. High-energy inverse free-
335
electron laser accelerator. in Third Annual U.S. Summer School on High Energy
Particle Accelerators. 1983. Upton and Stony Brook, NY, USA.
[125] C. Pellegrini and I. E. Campisi. The inverse free-electron laser accelerator. in

U.S. Summer School on High Energy Particle Accelerators. 1982. Stanford, CA,
USA.
[126] S. C. Hartman and J. B. Rosenzweig, Ponderomotive focusing in axisymmetric

RF linacs. Physical Review E (Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, and Related
Interdisciplinary Topics), 1993. 47(3): p. 2031-7.
[127] J. Rosenzweig, S. Hartman, and J. Stevens. RF focusing effects and multi-bunch

beam breakup in superconducting linear colliders. in Proceedings of the 1993
Particle Accelerator Conference (Cat. No.93CH3279-7) Proceedings of
International Conference on Particle Accelerators. 1993. Washington, DC, USA:
Ieee.
[128] R. Bonifacio, R. M. Caloi, and C. Maroli, The slowly varying envelope

approximation revisited. Optics Communications, 1993. 101(3-4): p. 185-7.
[129] C. W. Roberson and P. Sprangle, A review of free-electron lasers. AIP Conference

Proceedings, 1992(1): p. 912-1019.
[130] Personal communication with Pellegrini, 1996.
[131] K.-J. Kim. [An analysis of self-amplified spontaneous emission]. in Free Electron
Lasers. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference. 1985. Tahoe City,
CA, USA.
[132] K.-J. Kim and M. Xie. Self-amplified spontaneous emission for short wavelength
coherent radiation. in Fourteenth International Free Electron Laser Conference.
1992. Kobe, Japan.
[133] R. Bonifacio and F. Casagrande. [The superradiant regime of a free electron

laser]. in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Coherent and Collective
Properties in the Interaction of Relativistic Electrons and Electromagnetic
Radiation. 1984. Como, Italy.
[134] R. Bonifacio, et al. A study of linewidth, noise and fluctuations in a FEL operating
in SASE. in Fifteenth International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1993. The
Hague, Netherlands.
[135] R. Bonifacio, et al., Spectrum, temporal structure, and fluctuations in a high-gain

free-electron laser starting from noise. Physical Review Letters, 1994. 73(1): p.
70-3.
336
[136] J. D. Jackson, Classical electrodynamics. 2d ed ed. 1975, New York: Wiley.
xxii, 848 p.
[137] K.-J. Kim, Optical and power characteristics of synchrotron radiation sources.
Optical Engineering, 1995. 34(2): p. 342-52.
[138] V. L. Granatstein, et al. Experimental and numerical results on a millimeter-wave

free electron laser amplifier. in Fourteenth International Free Electron Laser
Conference. 1992. Kobe, Japan.
[139] H. P. Freund and R. H. Jackson, Self-consistent analysis of wiggler-field errors

in free-electron lasers. Physical Review A (Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids,
and Related Interdisciplinary Topics), 1992. 45(10): p. 7488-91.
[140] J. Rosenzweig, Analogies Between Charged Particle Beams and Photon Beams:
Methods for Laboratory Use. UCLA Department of Physics. PBPL Tech Note
#6, 1992).
[141] J. Murphy, Synchrotron Light Source Data Book. BNL 42333, 1993(3.0): p.
129.
[142] Y. H. Chin. Simple formulae for the optimization of the FEL gain length including
the effects of emittance, betatron oscillations and energy spread. in Fourteenth
[143] Y. H. Chin, K.-J. Kim, and M. Xie. Calculation of 3-D free electron laser gain:
comparison with simulation and generalization to elliptical cross section. in
[144] Y. H. Chin, K.-J. Kim, and M. Xie, Three-dimensional theory of the small-signal
high-gain free-electron laser including betatron oscillations. Physical Review A
(Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics),
1992. 46(10): p. 6662-83.
[145] Y. Shibata, et al. , Observation of coherent transition radiation at millimeter and

submillimeter wavelengths. Physical Review A (Statistical Physics, Plasmas,
Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics), 1992. 45(12): p. R8340-3.
[146] Y. Shibata, et al., Diagnostics of an electron beam of a linear accelerator using

coherent transition radiation. Physical Review E (Statistical Physics, Plasmas,
Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics), 1994. 50(2): p. 1479-84.
[147] U. Happek, A. J. Sievers, and E. B. Blum, Observation of coherent transition

radiation. Physical Review Letters, 1991. 67(21): p. 2962-5.
[148] M. J. Moran. [Recent measurements of coherent transition radiation]. in Ninth
337
International Conference on the Application of Accelerators in Research and
Industry. 1986. Denton, TX, USA.
[149] J. Rosenzweig, G. Travish, and A. Tremaine, Coherent transition radiation

diagnosis of electron beam microbunching. Nuclear Instruments & Methods in
Physics Research, Section A (Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and
Associated Equipment), 1995. 365(1): p. 255-9.
[150] G. Travish and J. Rosenzweig. Strong focusing for planar undulators. in Third
Advanced Accelerator Concepts Workshop. 1992. Port Jefferson, NY, USA.
[151] G. Travish and J. Rosenzweig. Numerical studies of strong focusing in planar

undulators. in Proceedings of the 1993 Particle Accelerator Conference (Cat.
[152] D. C. Quimby. [Betatron-synchrotron resonances and misalignment in free

electron laser oscillators with quadrupole focusing]. in Free Electron Lasers.
Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference. 1985. Tahoe City, CA,
USA.
[153] K. E. Robinson and D. C. Quimby. [Canted-pole transverse gradients in planar

undulators]. in Proceedings of the 1987 IEEE Particle Accelerator Conference:
Accelerator Engineering and Technology (Cat. No.87CH2387-9). 1987.
Washington, DC, USA: Ieee.
[154] H. P. Freund, et al. The effect of an axial guide field on free-electron lasers. in
Free-Electron Generators of Coherent Radiation. 3rd Workshop on Free-Electron
Laser Devices. 1981. Sun Valley, ID, USA: Addison-Wesley.
[155] R. K. Parker, et al., Axial magnetic-field effects in a collective-interaction free-

electron laser at millimeter wavelengths. Physical Review Letters, 1982. 48(4):
p. 238-42.
[156] H. P. Freund, Nonlinear analysis of free-electron-laser amplifiers with axial fields.

Physical Review A (General Physics), 1983. 27(4): p. 1977-88.
[157] S. Hiramatsu, et al. X-band ion-focused free-electron laser. in Fourteenth

[158] T. Ozaki, et al. First result of the KEK X-band free electron laser in the ion
channel guiding regime. in 13th International Free Electron Laser Conference.
1991. Santa-Fe, NM, USA.
[159] G. Travish. Performance simulation and parameter optimization for high gain
short wavelength FEL amplifiers. in Sixteenth International Free Electron Laser
338
Conference. 1994. Stanford, CA, USA.
[160] R. A. Jong, W. M. Fawley, and E. T. Scharlemann. Modeling of induction-linac

based free-electron laser amplifiers. in Modeling and Simulation of Laser Systems.
1989. Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[161] J. H. Booske, et al. Progress in high-power millimeter-wave FELs with short

period wigglers and sheet electron beams. in IEEE Conference Record - Abstracts.
1989 IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science (Cat. No.89CH2760-7).
1989. Buffalo, NY, USA: Ieee.
[162] L. H. Yu, Generation of intense UV radiation by subharmonically seeded single-pass

free-electron lasers. Physical Review A (Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids,
and Related Interdisciplinary Topics), 1991. 44(8): p. 5178-93.
[163] S. Krishnagopal, et al. Three-dimensional simulation of a hole-coupled FEL

oscillator. in 13th International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1991. Santa-Fe,
NM, USA.
[164] V. A. Bazylev and M. M. Pitatelev. Multisectional FELs with dispersion and

undulator sections. in Sixteenth International Free Electron Laser Conference.
1994. Stanford, CA, USA.
[165] B. Faatz, et al., Extension of the free-electron laser amplifier code TDA to resonator
configurations. Journal of Physics D (Applied Physics), 1993. 26(7): p. 1023-31.
[166] P. Jha and J. S. Wurtele. Three-dimensional simulation of a free-electron laser

amplifier. in Fourteenth International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1992. Kobe,
Japan.
[167] G. Travish, User Guide to the Official Version of TDA3D. Not Published,
1994.
[168] K. R. Crandall, TRACE3D, . 1988, LANL: Los Alamos.
[169] I. Ben-Zvi, et al. A proposed experiment for beam conditioning. in Fourteenth

[170] A. M. Sessler, D. H. Whittum, and L.-H. Yu, Radio-frequency beam conditioner

for fast-wave free-electron generators of coherent radiation. Physical Review
Letters, 1992. 68(3): p. 309-12.
[171] A. H. Lumpkin. Advanced diagnostic concepts for emerging RF-FEL designs. in

[172] S. C. Hartman, Emittance Measurement of the 4.5 MeV R.F. Gun. UCLA
Department of Physics. PBPL Tech Note #19, 3/17/1992(1992).
339
[173] Personal communication with X. J. Wang, 1996.
[174] S. L. Allen, et al. Generation of high power 140 GHz microwaves with an FEL
for the MTX experiment. in Proceedings of the 1993 Particle Accelerator Conference
[175] E. Esarey, W. Marable, and C. M. Tang. The effects of wiggler errors on

free-electron-laser performance. in Eleventh International Free Electron Laser
Conference. 1989. Naples, FL, USA.
[176] A. Friedman, S. Krinsky, and L. H. Yu, FEL gain reduction due to wiggler
errors. IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics, 1994. 30(5): p. 1295-302.
[177] H. P. Freund and R. H. Jackson. Wiggler imperfections in free-electron lasers.

in Fifteenth International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1993. The Hague,
Netherlands.
[178] C. J. Elliott, J. M. Frank, and L. E. Thode. Detrapping from magnetic field

errors as a random walk ESCAPE. in Fourteenth International Free Electron
Laser Conference. 1992. Kobe, Japan.
[179] R. Bonifacio, et al. Slippage, noise and superradiant effects in the UCLA FEL
experiment. in Fifteenth International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1993. The
Hague, Netherlands.
[180] S. Benson and J. M. J. Madey. [Shot and quantum noise in free electron lasers].
in Free Electron Lasers. Proceedings of the 1984 Free Electron Laser Conference.
1984. Castelgandolfo (Rome), Italy.
[181] W. M. Fawley, A. M. Sessler, and E. T. Scharlemann. Coherence and linewidth

studies of a 4 nm high power FEL. in Proceedings of the 1993 Particle Accelerator
[182] P. Pierini, Sarah, . 1990, Based on W. Sharp's Sara0.
[183] W. Fawley and E. T. Scharlemann, GINGER, , Based on the LLNL code

FRED(2D).
[184] J. S. Fraser, R. L. Sheffield, and E. R. Gray. [A new high-brightness electron

injector for free electron lasers driven by RF linacs]. in Free Electron Lasers.
Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference. 1985. Tahoe City, CA,
USA.
[185] C. Pellegrini. A high brightness electron accelerator and its particle beam physics.
340
Experimental program. in High Gain, High Power Free Electron Laser: Physics
and Application to TeV Particle Acceleration. Proceedings of the I.N.F.N.
International School on Electromagnetic Radiation and Particle Beams Acceleration.
1988. Varenna, Italy: North-Holland.
[186] I. Ben-Zvi. The BNL Accelerator Test Facility and experimental program. in
Third Advanced Accelerator Concepts Workshop. 1992. Port Jefferson, NY, USA.
[187] K. Batchelor, et al. Performance of the Brookhaven photocathode RF gun . in 13th

[188] J. Rosenzweig, et al. Initial measurements of the UCLA RF photoinjector. in

Fifteenth International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1993. The Hague,
Netherlands.
[189] S. C. Hartman and M. J. Hogan, Cold Test Measurement of the UCLA

Photo–Injector. UCLA Department of Physics. PBPL Tech Note #52,
4/30/1993(1993).
[190] S. C. Hartman, The UCLA High–Brightness Rf Photo–Injector, in Physics. 1993,

UCLA: Los Angeles. p. 228.
[191] D. T. Palmer, et al. Microwave measurements and beam dynamics simulations of

the BNL/SLAC/UCLA emittance compensated 1.6 cell photocathode RF gun. in
Electron-Beam Sources and Charged-Particle Optics. 1995. San Diego, CA, USA.
[192] S. C. Hartman, et al. Emittance measurements of the 4.5 MeV UCLA RF

photoinjector. in Proceedings of the 1993 Particle Accelerator Conference (Cat.
[193] M. Asakawa, et al. Experimental studies of photocathode materials for FELs. in

[194] T. Cavazos, et al. Initial studies of ferroelectric cathodes. in Digest of Technical

Papers. Ninth IEEE International Pulsed Power Conference (Cat. No.93CH3350-6)
Proceedings of 9th International Pulsed Power Conference. 1993. Albuquerque,
NM, USA: Ieee.
[195] S. H. Kong, et al. Photocathodes for free electron lasers. in Sixteenth International
[196] S. H. Kong, et al. Fabrication and characterization of cesium telluride photocathodes:

a promising electron source for the Los Alamos advanced FEL. in Sixteenth
International Free Electron Laser Conference. 1994. Stanford, CA, USA.
341
[197] S. H. Kong, et al. Performance of cesium telluride photocathodes as an electron
source for the Los Alamos advanced FEL. in Sixteenth International Free Electron
Laser Conference. 1994. Stanford, CA, USA.
[198] A. Septier, et al. A binary Al/Li alloy as a new material for the realization of
high-intensity pulsed photocathodes. in Twelfth International Free Electron Laser
Conference. 1990. Paris, France.
[199] A. Shih, et al., [Os-coated cathode for very high emission-density applications].
IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, 1987. 34(2): p. 1193-200.
[200] S. C. Stotlar, et al. [Gallium arsenide photocathode for the free electron laser]. in
Proceedings of the Southwest Conference on Optics. 1985. Albuquerque, NM,
USA.
[201] P. Davis, et al. The UCLA Compact High Brightness Electron Accelerator. in
Particle Accelerator Conference. 1995. Dallas, TX: To be published.
[202] J. B. Rosenzweig, Electron Micrographs of Copper Photocathodes. UCLA

[203] L. Serafini, ITACA, .
[204] B. E. Carlsten. New photoelectric injector design for the Los Alamos National
Laboratory XUV FEL accelerator. in Tenth International Free Electron Laser
Conference. 1988. Jerusalem, Israel.
[205] L. Serafini. Analytical approach to transverse dynamics in multi-cell RF guns.

in Sixth Advanced Concepts Workshop. 1994. Fontana, WI, USA.
[206] B. E. Carlsten and R. L. Sheffield. Photoelectric injector design considerations.

in 1988 Linear Accelerator Conference Proceedings (CEBAF-Report-89-001). 1988.
Newport News, VA, USA: Continuous Electron Beeam Accelerator Facility.
[207] J. B. Rosenzweig, Redesign of the Low Energy Beam Transport in the UCLA
Photoinjector. UCLA Department of Physics. PBPL Tech Note #57,
6/24/1993(1993).
[208] Personal communication with J. Rosenzweig, 1996.
[209] R. Zhang, S. Hartman, and C. Pellegrini. The plane wave transformer linac
development at UCLA. in Proceedings of the 1993 Particle Accelerator Conference
[210] R. Zhang, in Physics. 1996, UCLA.
342
[211] P. Tran and G. Travish, Saturnus Quadrupole Magnet Field Preliminary
Measurements. UCLA Department of Physics. PBPL Tech Note #30, 1991).
[212] N. Barov, P. Tran, and S. Thompson, Quadrupole Magnet Measurements.

UCLA Department of Physics. PBPL Tech Note #31, 1991).
[213] N. Barov, et al., Measurement of the Dipole Magnets. UCLA Department of

Physics. PBPL Tech Note #42, 1992).
[214] J. M. Caulfield, Field Measurements of the Steering Magnets. UCLA Department

of Physics. PBPL Tech Note #62, 12/20/1993(1993).
[215] C. O. Edited by: Pak, S. Edited by: Kurokawa, and T. Edited by: Katoh.
Proceedings of International Conference on Accelerators and Large Experimental
Physics Control Systems (KEK Proceedings 92-15). in Proceedings of International
Conference on Accelerators and Large Experimental Physics Control Systems
(KEK Proceedings 92-15). 1991. Tsukuba, Japan: Nat. Lab. High Energy Phys.
[216] W. L. Wilson, M. W. May, and A. J. Kozubal. Rapid development of a

measurement and control system for the advanced free-electron laser. in 13th
[217] Personal communication with M. Hogan, 1996.
[218] J. C. Terrien, The Saturnus Modulator. UCLA Department of Physics. PBPL

Tech Note #4, 1991).
[219] S. Park and D. McDermott, Microwave Systems for Photocathode Gun and RF
Linac at UCLA. UCLA Department of Physics. PBPL Tech Note #9,
4/16/1991(1991).
[220] A. Luches, V. Nassisi, and M. R. Perrone, [Moveable Faraday cup for high-
intensity electron beam pulses]. Review of Scientific Instruments, 1985. 56(1):
p. 758-9.
[221] D. H. McIntosh, Faraday Cup Beam Dumps for the UCLA PBPL. UCLA
[222] K. B. Unser. Design and preliminary tests of a beam intensity monitor for LEP.
in Proceedings of the 1989 IEEE Particle Accelerator Conference. Accelerator
Science and Technology (Cat. No.89CH2669-0). 1989. Chicago, IL, USA: Ieee.
[223] Phosphor Settling Procedure. UCLA Department of Physics. PBPL Tech Note
#84, 1994).
[224] K. L. Brown, et al., Transport: A computer program for designing charged particle
beam transport systems. CERN, Geneva, Switzerland. 1973).
343
[225] R. H. Miller, et al. Nonintercepting emittance monitor. in Proceedings of the
12th International Conference on High-Energy Accelerators. 1983. Batavia, IL,
USA: Fermi Nat. Accelerator Lab.
[226] Y. Yamazaki, et al., High-precision pepper-pot technique for a low-emittance

electron beam. Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research, Section
A (Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment), 1992.
322(2): p. 139-45.
[227] S. Humphries, Charged particle beams. 1990, New York: Wiley. xv, 834 p.
[228] J. Rosenzweig and G. Travish, Design Considerations for the UCLA PBPL
Slit–based Phase Space Measurement Systems. UCLA Department of Physics.
PBPL Tech Note #64, 3/2/1994(1994).
[229] E. J. Burge and D. A. Smith, Rev. Sci. Inst., 1962. 33: p. 1371.
[230] E. D. Courant, Rev. Sci. Instr., 1951. 22: p. 1003.
[231] J. T. Rogers, A. Gray, and J. B. Warren. A high repetition rate beam profile
monitor. in Proceedings sof the Workshop on Advanced Beam Instrumentation
(KEK Proceedings 91-2). 1991. Tsukuba, Japan: Nat. Lab. High Energy Phys.
[232] R. Zhang, et al., BPM Revisit: Summary of the Previous Test Results. UCLA
Department of Physics. PBPL Tech Note #58, 1994).
[233] B. Gitter, Optical Transition Radiation. UCLA Department of Physics. PBPL

Tech Note #24, 1993).
[234] G. Hairapetian, et al. Streak camera measurements of electron bunch length

from a copper photocathode in an RF gun. in Proceedings of the 1993 Particle
Accelerator Conference (Cat. No.93CH3279-7) Proceedings of International
Conference on Particle Accelerators. 1993. Washington, DC, USA: Ieee.
[235] A. A. Varfolomeev, et al. Large-field-strength short-period undulator design. in

[236] K. Halbach. [Permanent magnets for production and use of high energy particle
beams]. in Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Rare-Earth
Magnets and their Applications and the Fourth International Symposium on
Magnetic Anisotropy and Coercivity in Rare Earth- Transition Metal Alloys.
1985. Dayton, OH, USA: Univ. Dayton.
[237] K. Halbach. New technologies: permanent magnet undulators (free electron lasers).
in Topical Meeting on Free Electron Generation of Extreme Ultraviolet Coherent
Radiation. 1983. Upton, NY, USA.
344
[238] A. A. Varfolomeev, Status of the Kurchatov Undulator. UCLA Department of
Physics. PBPL Tech Note #29, 4/15/1991(1991).
[239] A. A. Varfolomeev and C. Pellegrini, On some Distinctivness of the

Kurchatov–UCLA Undulator Scheme Providing Strong Magnetic Fields for Short
Periods. UCLA Department of Physics. PBPL Tech Note #21, 9/91(1991).
[240] K. Halbach. Permanent magnet undulators. in Bendor Free Electron Laser

Conference. 1982. Bendor, France.
[241] A. A. Varfolomeev, et al., Large Field Strength Short Period Undulator Design.
UCLA Department of Physics. PBPL Tech Note #25, 1991).
[242] C. M. Fortgang. Field correction for a one-meter long permanent-magnet wiggler.

in 1992 Linear Accelerator Conference Proceedings (AECL-10728). 1992. Ottawa,
Ont., Canada: AECL Research.
[243] G. Travish, Pulsed Wire Measurements of the UCLA/Kurchatov Undulator at

LANL. UCLA Department of Physics. PBPL Tech Note #34, 1993).
[244] Personal communication with A. Gover, 1993.
[245] K. Chang, Handbook of microwave and optical components. 1989, New York: J.
Wiley. 4 v.
[246] C. Kittel and H. Kroemer, Thermal physics. 2d ed ed. 1980, San Francisco:
W. H. Freeman. xvii, 473 p.
[247] D. Gooden and J. Rosenzweig, Modeling of the X-ray Radiation Dependence

on Power in High Gradient Radio–Frequency Accelerator Structures. UCLA
[248] G. Travish, PBPL Heat Generation Estimate. UCLA Department of Physics.

PBPL Tech Note 1993).
[249] G. Travish, Electric Utility for the PBPL. UCLA Department of Physics.
PBPL Tech Note 5/5/1993(1993).
[250] R. Sternbach and M. Okuda, ST:TNG Technical Manual. 2363, Utopian Plantia:
Starfleet. 183.
[251] G. Travish, CAMAC Hardware Selection for Saturnus. UCLA Department of

Physics. PBPL Tech Note #16, 1991).
[252] R. Hedrick, Remote Control of the Miller Power Supply. UCLA Department of
Physics. PBPL Tech Note #61, 1/28/1994(1994).
345
[253] P. Saghizadeh, Saftey Interlock System Overview and Functionality. UCLA
Department of Physics. PBPL Tech Note 1995).
[254] G. Lucas, The Star Wars trilogy, . 1992, Fox Video: Beverly Hills, CA.
346
Reference Index
Reference .................................................................................................................... Page

[1].........................................................................................................................................3
[2-7]......................................................................................................................................3
[3].........................................................................................................................32, 72, 124
[5].........................................................................................................................................4
[6].....................................................................................................................................227
[7].........................................................................................................................................4
[8].........................................................................................................................................3
[9].........................................................................................................................................3
[10].......................................................................................................................................3
[11].......................................................................................................................................3
[12].......................................................................................................................................4
[13].......................................................................................................................................5
[14-16]..................................................................................................................................6
[17].................................................................................................................................6, 34
[18-22]..................................................................................................................................6
[22]...............................................................................................................................50, 52
[23].......................................................................................................................................6
[24].......................................................................................................................................6
[25].......................................................................................................................................7
[26].......................................................................................................................................7
[27, 28].................................................................................................................................7
[28, 160]...........................................................................................................................106
[29-31]..................................................................................................................................7
[32].......................................................................................................................................7
[33-35]..................................................................................................................................8
[36, 37].................................................................................................................................8
[38-40]..................................................................................................................................8
[41, 42].................................................................................................................................8
[43-45]..................................................................................................................................8
[46].......................................................................................................................................8
[47].......................................................................................................................................8
347
[48, 62, 188-190]..............................................................................................................151
[48].......................................................................................................................................9
[49, 50].................................................................................................................................9
[51].......................................................................................................................................9
[52].......................................................................................................................................9
[53-55]..................................................................................................................................9
[56, 71]...............................................................................................................................10
[56].......................................................................................................................................9
[57-59]..................................................................................................................................9
[60, 96].............................................................................................................................147
[60-64]..................................................................................................................................9
[65-67]................................................................................................................................10
[68-70]................................................................................................................................10
[72, 73]...............................................................................................................................10
[74-76]................................................................................................................................10
[77-80]................................................................................................................................10
[81-83]................................................................................................................................10
[84, 85]...............................................................................................................................10
[86, 87]...............................................................................................................................10
[86].........................................................................................................................32, 50, 59
[87]...................................................................................................................................106
[88-90]................................................................................................................................10
[91-93]................................................................................................................................10
[92]...................................................................................................................................108
[94].....................................................................................................................................11
[95].....................................................................................................................................11
[96].....................................................................................................................................12
[97].....................................................................................................................................14
[98-102]..............................................................................................................................14
[103-110]............................................................................................................................14
[109, 174-176]..................................................................................................................133
[110].............................................................................................................................14, 31
[111, 150, 151]...................................................................................................................89
[111]...................................................................................................................................14
[112]...........................................................................................................................16, 115
[113]...........................................................................................................................17, 169
[114]...........................................................................................................................20, 108
[115]...........................................................................................................................22, 158
[116].................................................................................................................32, 48, 58, 68
[117].............................................................................................................................32, 89
[118]...................................................................................................................................34
[119]...................................................................................................................................35
[120, 121]...........................................................................................................................37
348
[122, 123]...........................................................................................................................37
[124, 125]...........................................................................................................................42
[126, 127]...........................................................................................................................42
[126].........................................................................................................................127, 151
[128]...................................................................................................................................44
[129]...................................................................................................................................45
[130]...................................................................................................................................60
[131, 132]...........................................................................................................................63
[133]...................................................................................................................................64
[134]...........................................................................................................................64, 137
[135]...........................................................................................................................64, 135
[136].............................................................................................................................66, 67
[137]...................................................................................................................................69
[138, 161].........................................................................................................................106
[138]...................................................................................................................................74
[139]...................................................................................................................................75
[140]...................................................................................................................................77
[141]...................................................................................................................................78
[142-144]............................................................................................................................80
[142]...........................................................................................................................91, 103
[145, 146, 148].................................................................................................................218
[145]...................................................................................................................................81
[146-148]............................................................................................................................83
[147].................................................................................................................................225
[149]...........................................................................................................................83, 218
[152, 153]...........................................................................................................................92
[154-156]............................................................................................................................92
[157, 158]...........................................................................................................................92
[159].................................................................................................................................104
[162-165]..........................................................................................................................108
[166].................................................................................................................................109
[167].................................................................................................................................109
[168].........................................................................................................................114, 164
[169].................................................................................................................................124
[170].................................................................................................................................124
[171].........................................................................................................................124, 180
[172, 192].........................................................................................................................205
[172].................................................................................................................................126
[173].........................................................................................................................128, 217
[177].................................................................................................................................133
[178].................................................................................................................................133
[179].................................................................................................................................135
[180].................................................................................................................................136
349
[181].................................................................................................................................136
[182].................................................................................................................................137
[183].................................................................................................................................141
[184].................................................................................................................................150
[185].................................................................................................................................150
[186, 187].........................................................................................................................150
[190].................................................................................................................................151
[191].................................................................................................................................152
[192].................................................................................................................................152
[193-200]..........................................................................................................................153
[201].................................................................................................................................154
[202].................................................................................................................................154
[203].................................................................................................................................156
[204].................................................................................................................................156
[205].................................................................................................................................156
[206].................................................................................................................................156
[207].................................................................................................................................158
[208].................................................................................................................................158
[209].................................................................................................................................160
[210].................................................................................................................................162
[211].................................................................................................................................163
[212].................................................................................................................................163
[213].................................................................................................................................166
[214].................................................................................................................................167
[215, 216].........................................................................................................................168
[217].................................................................................................................................172
[218].................................................................................................................................173
[219].................................................................................................................................173
[220].................................................................................................................................181
[221].................................................................................................................................183
[222].................................................................................................................................186
[223].................................................................................................................................191
[224].................................................................................................................................198
[225].................................................................................................................................202
[226].................................................................................................................................202
[227].................................................................................................................................203
[228].................................................................................................................................205
[229, 230].........................................................................................................................210
[231].................................................................................................................................215
[232].................................................................................................................................216
[233].................................................................................................................................218
[234].................................................................................................................................225
[235-237]..........................................................................................................................227
350
[238].................................................................................................................................227
[239].................................................................................................................................228
[240].................................................................................................................................229
[241].................................................................................................................................229
[242].................................................................................................................................235
[243].................................................................................................................................236
[244].................................................................................................................................240
[245].................................................................................................................................242
[246].................................................................................................................................244
[247].................................................................................................................................304
[248].................................................................................................................................306
[249].................................................................................................................................307
[250].................................................................................................................................312
[251].................................................................................................................................313
[252].................................................................................................................................321
[253].................................................................................................................................321
[254].................................................................................................................................325
351
INDEX
CAMAC............................223, 224, 227
Casagrande...........................................9
CCD...........................143, 144, 145, 146
centroid.....................................152, 153
A Cerchioni ..............................................9
actuator.............................142, 143, 164 CKX ...................................................181
actuators ...................................136, 230 clearest ................................................16
ADC...........................................138, 139 cm .45, 87, 102, 115, 146, 155, 171, 172,
ADCs.................................137, 161, 227 174, 207, 208
AG62, 188, 198, 199, 201, 203, 204, 205, colinear................................................18
208, 212 Colson ...................................................3
al.....................................................31, 46 Compton.................................10, 20, 42
Alamos......................................109, 175 computationally...............................188
Alfven................................................153 Conflat...............................................222
ATF....................................................161 CTR...49, 50, 51, 54, 163, 164, 165, 166,
attenuator .........................130, 131, 132 167
Attenuators.......................................130
attenuators........................129, 130, 131 D
DA .....................................................228
B DACs.................................................227
ballistically ...................................59, 82 databus..............................................125
beamlet......................152, 153, 154, 156 Dattoli ...............................................193
beamlets...150, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, DB......................................................175
157 dB...............................................131, 132
Beamline ...........................................106 De...........................................................9
beamline ..7, 55, 77, 106, 107, 108, 109, de .........................................................10
114, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 136, debunching.......................................189
139, 140, 161, 176, 177, 190, 216, 219, defocus..............193, 198, 199, 204, 210
220, 221, 222, 223 defocuses ..........................................193
beamlines..........................................221 defocusing 188, 193, 197, 198, 208, 211
beampipe....................52, 140, 172, 220 detrapping............59, 60, 189, 197, 211
beampipes ........................................120 detuning............................29, 32, 34, 35
beamstraulung.................................146 digitization .......................................230
Bessel...................................5, 40, 45, 52 digitizer.....................................146, 228
betafunction .....................5, 14, 15, 208 Dimensional.....................................181
BNL ...........................109, 110, 161, 162 dimensional...11, 42, 46, 57, 65, 66, 85,
Boltzman.............................................19 86, 100, 150, 182, 184
Bonifacio.............................9, 31, 38, 95
BPM...........................150, 160, 161, 162 E
BPMs .................................................162 eigenstate............................................27
Brau .................................................9, 42 eikonal.................................................25
Brookhaven ......................109, 161, 162 electrodynamics.................................16
Emittance...5, 85, 89, 90, 103, 112, 114,
C 149, 150, 153, 212
319
emittance .37, 41, 44, 46, 47, 57, 61, 66, grail....................................................117
71, 72, 75, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 94,
96, 97, 107, 111, 114, 115, 116, 117, H
119, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, Halbach.............................................171
157, 158, 159, 160, 201, 209, 210, 221 Hamiltonian .......................................19
emittances...........................................12 Hartman............................................152
et ....................................................31, 46
ethernet.............................................224 I
eV.......................................................127 ICT.............137, 139, 140, 141, 145, 230
exponentials .................................28, 53 IEEE...................................................224
IFEL .....................................................23
F II.................................................6, 7, 104
Faraday ....135, 136, 137, 138, 141, 145, insertable ..........................................137
230 interferometers ................................220
FD ..............................................204, 210 IR.......79, 81, 93, 96, 127, 164, 176, 177,
FDFD.................................................204 178, 179
Feedthroughs...................................217 IRFEL.....................................................4
feedthroughs....................................221
FEL..2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, K
18, 19, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, kA ......................................................190
34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, kG ......................................................171
49, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, klystron...............................72, 129, 171
65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, KMR ..............................9, 16, 19, 26, 27
80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93, Kurchatov.........................170, 172, 173
94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102,
117, 162, 164, 166, 170, 171, 176, 177, L
181, 188, 191, 192, 194, 197, 198, 200, LabVIEW ..........................................224
201, 202, 203, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, LAN...................................................225
211 LANL ........................................109, 175
FELs..6, 9, 10, 16, 23, 55, 62, 67, 70, 85, Larmor ................................................39
188 Linac..................................117, 118, 119
fiducial ..............................................220 linac ....87, 118, 119, 120, 124, 125, 129,
FODO..................................14, 188, 200 130, 132, 158, 219, 222, 223, 230
Fourier.................................................50 linacs....................................................10
LLNL...................................................69
G Lorentz..................5, 19, 20, 21, 58, 123
Gauss.................................................227
Gaussian .................................41, 52, 53 M
Gaussmeter...............................149, 174 Macintosh.........................................224
GB ......................................................225 macrobunch......................................161
genlock..............................................228 Madey ...................................................2
GHz ...........................................129, 226 magnetometer..........................120, 174
gigawatts ............................................45 MathCAD ...........................47, 181, 212
GPIB ..................................................224 MB .....................................................225
320
metafile ...............................................73 143, 145, 148, 152, 154, 158, 159, 161,
MeV48, 78, 117, 135, 138, 148, 153, 155, 162, 163, 164, 166, 170, 171, 172, 173,
190, 221 174, 175, 207, 212, 216, 217, 219, 220,
microbunch ......................................161 221, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228
microbunched..............................50, 54 pC ..............................................137, 140
microbunches.....................................49 Pellegrini.................9, 27, 30, 31, 36, 95
Microbunching ..................................50 Phillips ..................................................2
microbunching...................................50 photodiode...............................128, 145
mm.............................................145, 172 photoelectron...........................145, 146
modelock ..........................................225 photoelectrons .109, 117, 126, 137, 145
modelocker.......................................225 photoemission..................................126
Monoenergetic.................................210 Pierini..............................................9, 95
monoenergetic .............................30, 51 Piovella .................................................9
Motz ......................................................2 Poisson................................................97
ms ......................................................145 pondermotive ...18, 23, 24, 59, 83, 197,
multibunch.......................................161 211
multiparticle.......................................18 priori....................................................94
multipole ..........................................120 ps..........................75, 109, 127, 134, 145
Murphy.........................9, 27, 30, 31, 36 PWT...................................117, 118, 124
MW......................................................45 pyrometer.........................................128
mW....................................................129
mylar .................................................163 Q
Quadra..............................................225
N Quadrupole......................188, 192, 209
Narduci...............................................31 quadrupole14, 57, 62, 70, 120, 121, 122,
nC.........................75, 112, 137, 140, 148 123, 188, 189, 199, 201, 202, 210, 211
Nd......................................................127 quadrupoles 15, 73, 120, 121, 124, 125,
nF.......................................................136 148, 150, 188, 193
nm......................................112, 127, 188
Nomex...............................................223 R
ns........................................................139 Raman...........................................10, 19
nsec....................................................140 Rayleigh..............................6, 12, 43, 44
readback............................149, 227, 230
O Renieri...............................................193
OFHC................................................112 rephased ...........................................229
rescaled ...............................................29
P RF10, 18, 71, 75, 90, 109, 110, 111, 113,
paraxial ...............................................72 119, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 134, 137,
PARMELA................................115, 116 139, 153, 161, 216, 222, 223, 225, 226,
PBPL.....6, 47, 55, 56, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 228, 229, 230
70, 71, 75, 77, 80, 81, 87, 90, 91, 93, 96, rms5, 14, 87, 88, 89, 153, 154, 155, 156,
97, 101, 102, 106, 107, 109, 110, 112, 175
113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 120, 122, 123, Rosenzweig ..........................55, 95, 152
126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 136, 138, 141,
321
S Travish ..................................55, 95, 152
SASE..............................9, 38, 61, 64, 76 turbomolecular ................................222
Scharlemann55, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196
Schottky ............................................111 U
Scully.....................................................3 ubitron ..................................................2
Sessler..................................................16 Ubitrons............................................170
Sextupole .192, 203, 204, 207, 208, 209, UCLA2, 4, 105, 106, 108, 142, 152, 161,
211 170, 175, 188, 218
sextupole55, 56, 62, 188, 193, 197, 198, UHV ..................................119, 222, 223
199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, uncorrelated.........43, 92, 154, 156, 157
209, 210, 211 Undulator..5, 6, 14, 41, 43, 55, 93, 170,
sextupoles.................193, 199, 201, 211 171
shifter ................................130, 131, 132 undulator...4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16,
shifters...............................................130 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 32, 35, 36,
SI ..........................................................56 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60,
sinusoidal ...................................40, 173 69, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 82, 87, 93, 95,
situ.....................111, 125, 144, 145, 220 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 120, 121, 122,
SLAC .117, 118, 188, 205, 207, 208, 209 123, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,
Souza.....................................................9 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195,
Stanford ................................2, 118, 226 197, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208,
stepwise ............................................188 209, 211
stricly.................................................171 Undulators .................................55, 187
stripline.............................................161 undulators.9, 14, 42, 45, 46, 55, 56, 57,
striplines ...........................................161 75, 171, 188, 190, 195, 198, 204, 205
subpanel............................................218 unscaled..............................................30
subpanels..........................................218 UV..............................................112, 127
superconducting................................10
superposition .............................94, 172 V
SVEA...................................................25 VAC...................................................218
Switcher ............................................228 Varfolomeev.....................................170
switcher.............................................228 VCR ...................................................228
switchers...........................................228 vs................................................141, 175
T W
TDA.....................................................72 wakefields ................................119, 220
Tesla ....................................................45 waveguide................111, 130, 217, 222
thermionic ........................................109 waveguides ....................69, 70, 72, 129
timescale ...................................145, 226 wavenumber5, 51, 53, 57, 59, 165, 194,
Torr....................................112, 221, 222 201
torr.....................................................222 wavenumbers ..................................196
torroids..............................................139 wavepacket.........................................42
TR...................................................48, 49 wiggler..................................................2
Tr........................................................200 WKB ....................................................25
trace...........................................137, 145 workfunction....................................127
322
worksheet ...................................47, 212
Wurtele ...............................................72
X
Xie......................................................181
Y
YAG...................................................127
323

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

i

The dissertation of Gil A. Travish is approved.

James Rosenzweig, Committee Chair

University of California, Los Angeles

Acronym Glossary ................................................................................... 323

Reference Index ........................................................................................ 347

Word Index ............................................................................................... 352

Figure 1.1: A simple wiggler or undulator. Pairs of magnets with alternating

Figure 2.1: The basic components of a single–pass FEL........................................29

Figure 2.4: Undulator parameters represented in pictorial form. The arrows

Figure 2.5: Five frames of single particle motion in an FEL.................................35

Figure 2.6: A cartoon of phase bunching occurring to a particle distribution in

Figure 2.7: The geometry used here for a planar undulator.................................39

Figure 2.8: Bunching of an initially uniform distribution by a ponderomotive

Figure 2.9: The small–gain lineshape function.......................................................47

Figure 2.13: A simplistic self amplified spontaneous emission model. A portion

Figure 2.14: The angular distribution of the spontaneous emission as a function

Figure 2.16: Conceptual diagram of the coherent transition radiation

Figure 3.1: Flowchart of author’s method of analyzing an FEL by using a

Figure 3.2: The input/output structure of TDA3D..............................................110

Figure 3.4: FEL gain length versus beam current. ...............................................114

Figure 3.11: Gain length versus normalized RMS beam emittance.....................127

Figure 3.14: A numerical simulation showing the time dependence of the

Figure 4.3: The PBPL RF photocathode gun shown in cross–section. ..............152

Figure 4.7: PARMELA simulation results showing emittance compensation in

Figure 4.9: The Plane Wave Transformer Linac in cross–section. This

Figure 4.12: The basic schematic of the RF system. ...............................................174

Figure 4.13: The high–power RF waveguide layout..............................................175

Figure 4.14: The gun high power attenuator calibration. Attenuation in dB as a

Figure 4.15: The linac high power attenuator calibration. Attenuation in dB as a

Figure 5.3: A schematic diagram of the Integrating Current Transformer showing

Figure 5.4: Installation of the ICT on the beamline..............................................187

Figure 5.17: A cartoon of the emittance slit measurement technique.................206

Figure 5.21: The CTR photon wavenumber spectrum as a function of

Figure 6.1: Diagram of the PBPL/Kurchatov undulator showing a side view.

Figure 6.3: A front (beamline) view of the PBPL/Kurchatov undulator. The

Figure 6.7: A schematic of the pulse wire undulator measurement system....235

Figure 6.12: A more complete IR diagnostics layout including wavelength

Figure 8.1: A cartoon of an undulator magnet with external quadrupole focusing.

Figure 8.3: Ion focusing for an FEL is depicted in this diagram........................272

Figure 8.5: Results of numerical simulations show the length of undulator

Figure 8.7: Permanent magnets configured in planar arrays to produce a

Figure 8.9: Sextupole focusing performance calculated numerically for the

Figure 8.10: A comparison of quadrupole and sextupole focusing in an FEL.

Figure 8.15: The PBPL control system .....................................................................312

Figure 8.17: The control computer topology. .........................................................314

Figure 8.18: The PBPL trigger system......................................................................315

Figure 8.20: The PBPL magnet system.....................................................................318

Figure 8.21: The PBPL video system........................................................................319

Figure 8.22: The video trigger distribution system................................................320

Table 1.5: A list of notation used in this document..............................................25

Table 2.1: A summary of the parameters used to describe an FEL in a simple

Table 3.1: The nominal parameters of the PBPL FEL. .........................................99

Table 3.6: Comparison of effective input noise power with experiments

Table 3.8: Effect of beam current fluctuations on FEL performance. ..............118

Table 3.10: The effect of energy spread on FEL performance.............................132

Table 4.1: The PBPL RF photocathode gun parameters....................................153

Table 4.2: Design parameters of the PWT linac..................................................161

Table 4.3: The quadrupole magnet characteristics.............................................163

Table 4.5: The dipole magnet characteristics. .....................................................166

Table 4.6: The steering coils’ characteristics........................................................168

Table 4.7: PBPL drive laser design parameters...................................................172

Table 5.1: Summary of the Faraday Cup performance......................................185