ISSN 0020-4412, Instruments and Experimental Techniques, 2021, Vol. 64, No. 5, pp. 641–656. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd.

, 2021.
Russian Text © The Author(s), 2021, published in Pribory i Tekhnika Eksperimenta, 2021, No. 5, pp. 5–21.

Novel Technologies for Compact Electron

Linear Accelerators (Review)
S. V. Kutsaev
RadiaBeam Technologies LLC,
1717 Stewart st., Santa Monica, CA, 90404, United States
e-mail: kutsaev@radiabeam.com
Received February 25, 2021; revised April 14, 2021; accepted April 16, 2021

Abstract—This paper reviews new technologies that make it possible to implement such modern principles of
development and creation of applied linear electron accelerators as modularity, miniaturization, and cost
reduction. The development of accelerators in this direction became possible due to the emergence of tech-
nologies such as compact sources of radio-frequency (RF) power supply and efficient approaches to the fab-
rication of accelerating structures, as well as an increase in accelerating gradients and a decrease in the power
of RF losses in structures. The review is based on the author’s experience in developing compact accelerators.

DOI: 10.1134/S0020441221050079

INTRODUCTION isotopes [15]. The tendencies of miniaturization of

Particle accelerators are critical research tools in
nuclear physics, high-energy physics, materials sci-
ence, and radiochemistry, and are also used in micro-
circuitry, radiotherapy, security, and industrial appli-
cations. The development of accelerators became pos-
sible due to developments in the physics of charged
particle beams, microwave technologies, the use of
new materials and methods of their processing, etc.
[1]. Although large accelerators of the “mega-science”
class used for scientific purposes, such as the Large
Hadron Collider [2], are best known to a wide range of
specialists and ordinary people, this class accounts for
only ~1% of all accelerators in the world [3]. The
remaining 95% of accelerators are used for applied
purposes, of which 62% are used for industrial and
medical purposes [4]. The majority of applied-class
accelerators are linear electron accelerators (electron
linacs) with energies from a few to several tens of
megaelectronvolts.
One of the most important tasks in this area is to
reduce the size and weight of accelerators for such
areas of their application as cargo inspection [5–7].
As an example, in the case of border patrols, the accel-
erator, together with the power supply system, protec-
tion, control system, and detector station, should be
placed on a car for a rapid change of location [8, 9].
Accelerators for medical applications must also be
placed on a mobile robotized platform to allow access
of the beam from all sides of the tumor [10, 11]. Indus-
trial applications of portable accelerators include
blood irradiation [12], field radiography [13], oil well
logging [14], and safety systems currently using radio-
industrial accelerators were described in more detail in
[1].
The high cost of accelerators is also a significant
obstacle to the spread of accelerators in some areas of
industry. Currently, sterilization of medical equip-
ment, food disinfection, polymer production, and
nondestructive testing are the main parts of the mass
commercial application of electron accelerators in
industry. Together, these areas form a market with a
volume of more than US $500 million per year [16].
At the same time, the use of accelerators as radiation
sources is mainly concentrated in developed countries.
In low- and middle-income countries [17], whose pop-
ulation is more than 80% of the world’s population [18],
radioisotopes still dominate as sources of industrial
exposure, mainly 60Co.
One of the main reasons for the insufficient dis-
semination of accelerator technologies in industry in
these countries is the high capital cost of installations
and the need for qualified and trained service person-
nel. The cost of industrial-grade accelerators starts at
US $2 million for an linac-based system with energies
of 10 MeV and an average power of 20 kW to more than
5 million US dollars for an accelerator of the rhodo-
tron type [19]. In addition, these accelerators require
at least one technician or operator at a time during the
entire operation of the installation (usually 24 hours
per day, 7 days a week) and a team of engineers ready
to troubleshoot it [20]. The latter are usually employ-
ees of the accelerator manufacturer, but their services
are paid for by the operator. Finally, delivery times for
spare parts for accelerators can be up to several

641
642 KUTSAEV
142 cm
37 cm
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. Comparison of the sizes of of S-band RF power
sources (a) an NJR M1466T magnetron with a pulse power
of 3.1 MW and an average power of 3.1 kW, (b) a CPI VKS-
8262F klystron with a pulse power of 5 MW and an average
power of 36 kW, located inside the solenoid.
months, since they are not produced in large quanti-
ties.
This is in clear contrast to the successful commer-
cial use of medical accelerators for radiotherapy
around the world. Although their number is still insuf-
ficient, their distribution in developing countries is
rapidly increasing [21]. Due to the volume of produc-
tion of such accelerators (up to 1000 per year [22]),
there is a developed and efficient supply network of the
necessary components around the world and there are
significant stocks of these components. Medical accel-
erator manufacturers have a staff of engineers and ser-
vice technicians located in different parts of the world,
who are ready to quickly arrive on site and repair a
breakdown. In addition, there is a market for used
accelerators that are successfully sold in many coun-
tries. Thus, one of the paths for the development of
industrial accelerators can be the unification of their
design with medical accelerators, namely, the use of the
same RF power sources (magnetrons and klystrons),
pulse voltage sources (modulators), electron sources
(guns), etc.
1. HIGH-FREQUENCY POWER SUPPLIES
Most of the size and weight of a traditional acceler-
ator is determined by the power source and radiation
protection elements. The dimensions of the shield
layer directly depend on the size of the accelerating
section. One of the ways to reduce the size of these
components is to increase the frequency of oscillations
of the electromagnetic field in accelerators. Higher
frequency structures and power supplies are smaller
INSTRUMENTS AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES
and more energy efficient. However, reducing the size
and cost of accelerators for applied applications is
impossible without the use of new technologies. As an
example, to operate in shorter wavelength ranges,
microwave power sources are required that can pro-
vide a sufficient power level for efficient particle accel-
eration.
Traditional industrial accelerators operate in the
S-frequency band1 (3 GHz) and use a klystron as a
power source [23]. The klystron, as an RF power ampli-
fier, has such advantages as the availability of high peak
and average power and phase stability; however, it
requires a master signal source and a focusing solenoid
for operation, which significantly increases the size
and weight of the RF power supply system [24].
In modern accelerators, there is a tendency to use
more compact RF energy sources, that is, magnetrons.
Magnetrons are cheaper and smaller than klystrons (see
Fig. 1), but their power is limited to a few megawatts
per pulse and a few kilowatts on average [25]. The
power of klystrons can be tens of times higher than the
power of magnetrons. Most commercial medical
accelerators use magnetrons as a power source, so
their prevalence, availability, and reliability are very
high. At the same time, their capacity is insufficient
for industrial accelerators used for the disinfection of
water, food, sterilization of instruments, and the pro-
duction of polymers.
It is interesting to compare the dependence of the
cost of accelerators on the choice of a power source.
As an example, an e2v MG5349 modulator for an
S-band magnetron [26] with a peak power of 3.1 MW
and an average of 3.1 kW, which is widely used in med-
ical accelerators, will cost approximately US $45000.
Together with the magnetron itself and other compo-
nents, the RF power cost is approximately $45 per 1 W
of beam power (see Table 1). On the other hand, the
cost of a modulator from the same manufacturer
(Scandinova Systems [27]) designed for the CPI VKS-
8262F klystron [28] with a peak power of 5 MW and an
average of 36 kW used in industrial accelerators costs
more than $500000, which together with the cost of
the klystron itself and other components determines
the cost of 1 W of the beam as $39. Thus, the unit cost
of an RF power supply system is approximately the
same for systems with both low and high average
power.
This fact makes it possible to implement the para-
digm of modular construction of systems with high
beam power, when an accelerator with a high average
power is replaced by several accelerators of lower
power (modules). The advantages of this approach are
that the cost per module is significantly reduced. First,
1 The
radio frequency bands have different designations (accord-
ing to GOST, IEEE, etc.) in different areas of their use, there-
fore, we present the designations we use and the corresponding
frequency bands: S, 2–4 GHz, C – 4–8 GHz, X – 8–12 GHz,
Ku – 12–18 GHz, K – 18–27 GHz, Ka, 27–40 GHz.
Vol. 64 No. 5 2021
 NOVEL TECHNOLOGIES FOR COMPACT ELECTRON 643

this allows one to reduce the amount of the necessary Table 1. A comparison of the cost of RF systems for medical
start-up costs for purchasing an accelerator for indus- and industrial accelerators (assuming 50% efficiency of
trial use, which is currently a serious obstacle to the energy transfer to the beam from the RF field)
spread of accelerator technologies in many countries Accelerator type Medical Industrial
[15]. Secondly, it allows one to add technological
capacities for industrial installations as the throughput Pulse power, MW 3.1 5
of the enterprise increases (see Fig. 2).
Average power, kW 3.1 36
Another advantage is the higher reliability of mod-
ular systems. As an example, in the event of a failure of Beam power (average), kW 1.55 18
an accelerator with a power of 18 kW, the entire pro- RF system cost, $ 70000 700000
duction is stopped, while in the event of failure of one
of 12 accelerators with a power of 1.55 kW, each unit Power cost
can continue to operate with a reduced performance per 1 W beam, $ 45 39
(by 8%). Finally, the reduction in the power of one
module allows the use of magnetrons for medical
accelerators, which are produced in large quantities
and are widely available from many suppliers. The uni- tures [31]. In the case of structures based on a standing
fication of industrial accelerator technologies with wave, the stored energy, as determined by the Q-factor
medical accelerators also simplifies the process of of the resonator Q, decreases proportionally to f –1/2,
training and attracting maintenance personnel, since the which reduces the filling interval of the RF structure
task of finding or training specialists capable of working operating in the standing wave mode, during which
with complex high-power accelerators is more difficult the power is not used to accelerate the beam: τ =
than finding specialists familiar with medical accelera- QL −3/2
~ f [32], which also leads to increased effi-
tors, due to the fact that the latter number approximately πf
12000 around the world [22, 29]. ciency.
Another trend in the development of applied accel- One important problem is the limited presence of
erators is to increase the operating frequency f [30]. compact RF power sources that operate in shorter
This not only makes it possible to reduce the size of the wavelength ranges (than the S-band) with a sufficient
accelerating structure (approximately as f –5/2), the power level. As an example, the most common power
power source, and radiation protection, but also to source for medical accelerators is the X-band magne-
increase the efficiency of high-frequency energy use. tron. Such magnetrons usually have a pulse train duty
As an example, one such important criterion for the cycle (the so-called duty factor) of 10–4 up to 2 × 10–3
efficiency of conversion of RF-field energy into beam and pulsed power values from 1 to 2 MW. From the
energy is the shunt impedance, which is defined as the point of view of the efficiency of RF power use, a high
ratio of the square of the particle energy gain to the pulse power is preferable to a duty cycle, since for a
power dissipated in the structure (Rsh = V 2/P), which given radiation dose the average power consumption
increases with frequency as f 1/2 for traditional struc- increases linearly with the duty factor, but the radia-

(а) (b)

Fig. 2. Examples of the implementation of an industrial conveyor for irradiation of objects, built according to the classical (a) and
modular (b) principle.

INSTRUMENTS AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES Vol. 64 No. 5 2021

644 KUTSAEV
Table 2. A comparison of the characteristics and dimensions of compact air-cooled magnetrons for different frequency
ranges [28]
Range Model* Frequency, kW
S VMS1610 2.7–2.9
C SFD349 5.4–5.9
X SFD375 9.0–10.0
Ku VMU1724 14.6–15.2
Ka SFD332 32.9–33.5
*CPI manufacturer, United States.
tion dose itself grows with energy as Y = k(En), where
Y, Gy/min is the dose of bremsstrahlung; E, MeV is
the energy of the electron beam; n = 2.7–3.0; and k is
the conversion rate, depending on the design of the
target [33]. The most powerful commercially available
X-band magnetron used in medical accelerators is the
L-6170 magnetron, which is supplied by the L-3 com-
pany (United States), with a power of 2 MW [34].
Another promising alternative to traditional
klystrons is the Russian development of S-band multi-
beam klystrons with reverse focusing by permanent
magnets [35], which are comparable in size and power
supply characteristics to magnetrons, but have high
average and pulse powers and retain all the advantages
of klystrons. In recent years, a similar C-band klystron
with a pulse power of 3.5 MW has been developed in
Russia. Such klystrons are used in modern compact
electron accelerators [36].
For higher frequency magnetrons, the maximum
power of commercially available magnetrons decreases
with frequency. This is due to the fact that it is techno-
logically more difficult to cool compact power supplies.
Table 2 shows a comparison of the parameters of mag-
netrons of various frequencies, with air cooling (the
smallest in its class). It can be seen that the dimensions
of such sources decrease insignificantly, starting from
the X-band frequency, while Ka-band power sources
with a power of more than 100 kW are not available on
the market; therefore, an increase in the operating fre-
quency for applied accelerators powered by a magne-
tron above 15–17 GHz is impractical.
To operate at higher frequencies, it is necessary to
use klystrons [39], gyroklistrons [40], or gyrotrons [41,
42], whose dimensions become several times larger
than the dimensions of the accelerating structure,
which in fact neutralizes the advantages of short-wave
systems. As an example, the dimensions of powerful
pulsed Ka-band sources can be seen in Fig. 3. The
problem of the presence of an RF source is signifi-
cantly aggravated in the development of accelerators
that operate in the millimeter range, since the only
source with a power of hundreds of kilowatts or higher
is currently a gyrotron [43], which is even more com-
INSTRUMENTS AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES
Pulse power, kWt Weight, kg Size, cm
1000 34 39 × 40 × 33
1000 26 37 × 24 × 13
325 10.0 24 × 12.7 × 9.5
250 9.1 25 × 16 × 9.6
60 ~3.5 ~12 × 11 × 7
plex and is larger than a klystron; however, it does not
allow direct connection to the accelerating structure
[44]. The use of such sources makes sense for the cre-
ation of small (in comparison with existing analogs)
accelerators for high energies (more than several hun-
dred megaelectronvolts) using efficient high-gradient
technologies.
Recently, the issue of developing solid-state micro-
wave generators operating in the centimeter range and
higher has also been considered. Such sources have
high efficiency. (60–80%) [45–47] and also are attrac-
tive due to their reliability and modularity [48, 49].
However, their cost increases significantly with the
operating frequency, which is due to the technological
cost of high-frequency gallium-nitride transistors (or
Gunn diodes in the case of the millimeter wave range);
the dimensions of such power supplies significantly
exceed the dimensions of magnetrons with compara-
ble power values. As an example, the most popular and
cheapest 2.45 GHz source has a power of 500 W and a
cost of $2000 [50], while the cost of 1 kW of sources
from CPI and ApiTech for 9.3 GHz reaches $60000.
Therefore, at present, these technologies are impracti-
cal to use in applied accelerators.
2. SPLIT ACCELERATING
STRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY
Another problem in the transition to higher frequen-
cies is the progressive complexity of precision manufac-
turing, since the size of the elements and structural
details of high-frequency structures decreases in pro-
portion to the wavelength, while the sensitivity of their
parameters increases with frequency. To solve this
problem, the technology of the “split structure” was
proposed [51, 52], whose principle is that instead of
the traditional manufacture of many individual accel-
erating cells, which must then be soldered and tuned,
the structure is made of only two halves, from each of
which the profile of all cells is machined; these are
then connected (brazed, welded, or diffusion bonded
[53]), as shown in Fig. 4. This manufacturing method
not only allows one to reduce the number of elements
and connections, but also significantly simplifies the
Vol. 64 No. 5 2021
 NOVEL TECHNOLOGIES FOR COMPACT ELECTRON 645

(а) (b)

Fig. 3. Ka-band high pulse power sources: (a) 34 GHz gyroklistron with a power of 500 kW, a pulse duration of 100 μs and a rep-
etition rate of 1000 Hz, similar to that developed by NPO GIKOM [37], (b) 34 GHz magnicon with a power of 17 MW, a pulse
duration of 0.25 μs and a repetition rate of 1–2 Hz, developed at the Budker Institiute, SB, RAS [38].

access of tools for machining structural details [54, colleagues from RadiaBeam Technologies to adapt this
55]. The advantages of this manufacturing method can technology for applied centimeter wave accelerators in
also be attributed to the greater accuracy of manufac- order to reduce their cost. Examples of such structures
turing and alignment due to the absence of problems are shown in Fig. 6 and include the following projects:
associated with changing the dimensions of the struc-
ture during brazing [56], as well as high vacuum con- • A C-band biperiodic accelerating structure
ductivity inside the structure and the absence of vac- (BAS) with external coupling between cells (the so-
uum-water joints, which are undesirable in the design called side-coupled linac or SCL) A C-band for a
of accelerators [57]. compact slit microtron [65] intended for inspection of
The concept of a split structure has been developed cargo by the method of continuous irradiation, for exam-
and increased its popularity in the context of the ple, an inspection system for fast neutrons [66]; here, the
development of a linear electron–positron collider technological feasibility of manufacturing separated
with energies of the order of teraelectronvolts for
experiments in high-energy physics [58, 59]. Installa-
tions of this class, for example, the CLIC Compact (а)
Linear Collider [60] (CERN, Switzerland), require
the development of low-cost high-gradient structures.
The structure shown in Fig. 5 [61, 62] was developed
as a scientific experiment to determine the limiting
values of the microwave field strength in normally
conducting copper structures. Nevertheless, these
developments have demonstrated that such structures (b)
are promising for industrial accelerators. The struc-
ture in Fig. 5 has an operating frequency of 110 GHz,
which is at least 10 times higher than the frequencies
used in commercial accelerators, and was manufac-
tured by micromachining with elements of electrical
discharge machining [63, 64], which made it possible
to achieve a manufacturing accuracy of 1 μm and a
surface roughness of 200 nm. At the same time, the
cost of manufacturing one of the halves did not exceed
$10000.
Fig. 4. Sections of a split accelerating structure consisting
The results obtained while working with split struc- of two identical halves (a) connected to each other to form
tures of the millimeter wave prompted the author and his a diaphragm waveguide (b).

INSTRUMENTS AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES Vol. 64 No. 5 2021

646 KUTSAEV

fabricating such structures. The introduction of the

split-structure technology changes the paradigm for
the fabrication of accelerating structures and opens up
the possibility of using micro-processing methods for
the precise fabrication of high-frequency structures at
a low cost. It is important to note that this approach
makes it possible to achieve the mass production of
accelerators due to the fact that an identical part (half
of the structure) can be turned many times from one
piece of copper, significantly reducing the time for a
mechanic to participate in the manufacturing process.
In addition, the structure manufactured using this
technology does not require the participation of an
2 cm engineer to adjust the frequencies of the cells, as well
as the introduction of mechanisms for such adjust-
ment [56], which also reduces its cost. According to
Fig. 5. A photo of a 110 GHz split accelerating structure our estimates, during mass production of separated
developed at SLAC, United States (photo by V.A. Dolga- accelerating structures, the cost of their manufacture
shev).
can be reduced by a factor of 10: from approximately
$10000 to $1000.
structures with complex elements (drift tubes, cells and One of the first structures that consisted of two halves
communication slots) was demonstrated the first time. was the high-gradient X-band structure (11.424 GHz),
• A high gradient X-band Disk-loaded waveguide developed and manufactured jointly by the SLAC lab-
(DLW), in which the technology of electric beam oratories (United States) and CERN (Switzerland) in
welding was first applied for separated structures; the framework of the research program of the CLIC
collider [68, 69]. This structure, as shown in Fig. 7 was
• A Ku-band DLW consisting entirely of cells with made by conventional milling. However, more com-
a phase velocity less than the speed of light (0.3–1.0) pact structures can also be fabricated using electrical
[56]. Using this structure as an example, the possibil- discharge machining (EDM). In this case, the sinker
ity of manufacturing groupers with variable parame- (a cartridge used as an electrode) can be reused to pro-
ters using the technology of separated structures was duce identical structures.
demonstrated for the first time.
The principle of EDM technology is illustrated in
Although attempts to develop accelerating struc- Fig. 8 and is as follows. A high voltage is applied
tures at frequencies above the X-band were made ear- between the cartridge, made in the form of a part (neg-
lier [67], they faced the problem of the complexity of ative), and the workpiece material, which creates an
electrical discharge that burns out the metal of the
Table 3. A comparison of the threshold temperature of
part. Thus, the material to be processed takes the form
structure damage for different materials and methods of of a chuck (positive). The accuracy of sample fabrica-
their processing tion by this method is 2 μm; however, the accuracy of
some features of the geometry can be lower, up to
Damage 40 μm [70].
Material Treatment
temperature, °C
Despite the described advantages, the wear of the
Cu Annealed 66 cartridge over time will lead to the need to restore it to
Cu Annealed, oxygen-free 50 its original shape. The rate of electrode wear is highly
Cu Undercut with a single point dependent on the amount of material that needs to be
100 removed. In this regard, this method is more suitable
diamond cutter
for Ku-band and above structures, since such wave-
Cu Hot isostatic pressing 57 guides have finer geometry than the X-band struc-
Cu Monocrystalline 97 tures. Wear mainly occurs on local areas of the elec-
Cu Electroplating 80 trode surface; therefore it is necessary to take this into
Cu Silver plated 60
account when developing the geometry of the cells
and, possibly, to apply EDM after rough milling of the
CuZr Cold processing >114 part to maximize the life of the electrode. Finally,
CuZr Annealed 58 since the EDM process can leave traces of electrode
CuCr Annealed 52 material less than 1 μm in size, which are burned on
CuCr Unannealed 121
the top surfaces of the part, electrochemical cleaning
of the part is required to smooth the surface. Fortu-
CuAg Without processing 107 nately, this process is highly scalable and after the ini-

INSTRUMENTS AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES Vol. 64 No. 5 2021

 NOVEL TECHNOLOGIES FOR COMPACT ELECTRON
(а)
(b) 2 cm
(c)
3 mm
(d)
Fig. 6. Split type accelerating structures designed and built
by RadiaBeam Technologies: (a) C-band SCL for use in a
compact microtron; (b) Ku-band DLW with a bunching
section for a portable accelerator; (c) X-band DLW for lin-
ear collider, (d) 182 GHz DLW for the wake accelerator.
tial investment in equipment and tools it does not lead
to high costs per structure.
An alternative to EDM is a micromilling technol-
ogy that uses small diameter tools operating at very
high spindle speeds and configured into high precision
machines to produce small parts with high precision
(Fig. 9). There are a number of studies focused on
INSTRUMENTS AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES
647
Fig. 7. The split X-band accelerating structure for the
CLIC collider (photo from CERN, Switzerland).
comparing EDM and micromilling [71, 72], their gen-
eral conclusion is that micromilling provides greater
dimensional accuracy at a higher production cost.
In addition, this technology is more reproducible than
EDM due to the lack of uncertainty regarding elec-
trode wear. At the same time, it requires a greater
degree of intervention from a skilled mechanic and
therefore results in higher production costs.
However, with the traditional approach to milling
small parts, it is possible to process a large number of
parts in a single pass, which can achieve significant
labor savings and thus reduce manufacturing costs.
In fact, this method consists in the fact that it is possi-
ble to attach one copper bar to the machine bed, start
the main machining cycle and come back after 1–2
days to remove the parts and clean the geometry of the
back of the structure. This approach to mass produc-
tion allows up to 100 structures to be fabricated simul-
taneously.
One of the difficulties of the technology of micro-
milling of accelerating structures is the manufacture of
bunching cells with a low phase velocity. Figure 10
shows an example of split Ku-band section [56]. This
figure clearly shows that the ratio of the depth of the
cells to their width is approximately 1 : 1 in the case of
a phase velocity of 0.7 and more than 3 : 1 for a velocity
of 0.3 (hereinafter, we mean the relative phase veloc-
ity: the ratio of the absolute phase velocity to the speed
of light). This significant aspect ratio requires longer
cutter tools, which increases their susceptibility to
deformation and vibration and can affect achievable
tolerances and surface roughness.
Regardless of the manufacturing method that is
chosen, the split structure must be welded to ensure
vacuum tightness and flanges. Unlike the traditional
(cell-by-cell) method of fabricating structures, it takes
two cycles to solder separated structures. Brazing is car-
ried out using alloys of gold and copper, with the gold
content increasing in subsequent brazing steps to ensure
Vol. 64 No. 5 2021
648 KUTSAEV

in mass production, as dozens of structures of this size

Instrument holder can be brazed in a single furnace cycle.
At the end of the topic of the technology of manu-
Discharge
facturing separated structures, let us note that the
Dielectric liquid
manufacture of a C-band BAS [65] consisting of nine
regular cells and eight communication cells (see Fig. 6a),
Electrode required only 70 hours of automatic processing to cre-
ate two halves Ku-band structure (see Fig. 6b) required
40 hours per halve. This is significantly less time that
would be required with the traditional technology of
Article manufacturing individual cells (see Fig. 11), which is
now the standard for industrial linear accelerators.
Attachment

3. INCREASING THE ACCELERATING

Fig. 8. An illustration of the principle of the EDM tech-
nique.
Fig. 9. The process of manufacturing a split section of a
Ku-band DLW by milling.
1.27 mm
3.56 mm
4.83 mm 3.81 mm
Fig. 10. The bunching section of the Ku-band DLW, illus-
trating the difference in the ratio of the length of the cells
to their radius depending on of the phase velocity.
that previously brazed joints do not melt. In this case,
the first brazing step is needed to connect the two
halves, and the second is to attach the vacuum and
waveguide flanges. Furnace brazing also offers savings
GRADIENTS
In addition to increasing the operating frequency,
another way to reduce the size of the accelerators is to
increase the accelerating gradient. In fact, the length
of the structure decreases in inverse proportion to the
accelerating gradient. However, at the same time, the
value of the RF power P required to power such struc-
tures also increases (initially as the square of the accel-
erating voltage Eacc, but it becomes linear if we take the
decrease in the length of the structure into account):
2
WEacc
P = W = . (1)
Rsh L Rsh
Increasing requirements for power values, in turn,
leads to the need to use more bulky power supplies.
As a result, the benefit from operating at high gradi-
ents in the case of electron accelerators for low and
medium energies (<10 MeV) may be negligible or
absent altogether. However, in the development of
accelerators with energies ranging from several tens of
megaelectronvolts (for example, linacs for the produc-
tion of radioisotopes [73] or secondary neutron flux [74])
to hundreds of megaelectronvolts (for example, for radi-
ation sources based on the inverse Compton effect [75]),
the benefits of working at higher gradients become sig-
nificant.
The main factor that limits the attainment of high
gradients in normally conducting accelerating struc-
tures is high-RF breakdown (see Fig. 12 [76]).
Although the physics of this phenomenon in the con-
text of increasing gradients in RF structures has been
studied for more than 2 decades [77, 78], the data on
RF breakdown remain mostly empirical with a very
limited analytical understanding of the mechanism,
conditions, and breakdown dynamics. However, at
present there is a clear correlation between the proba-
bility of occurrence of an RF breakdown with the
amplitudes of the electric and magnetic fields, as well
as the pulse duration. In particular, the following cri-
teria are used to design high-gradient structures [79]:
• The maximum value of the electric field strength
on the surface of multicellular structures should not
exceed 160 MV/m in the S-band, 250 MV/m in the

INSTRUMENTS AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES Vol. 64 No. 5 2021

 NOVEL TECHNOLOGIES FOR COMPACT ELECTRON
Fig. 11. X-band DLW accelerating cells, manufactured in
the traditional “cell-by-cell” method, and auxiliary com-
ponents for their brazing.
X-band and 500 MV/m in the millimeter range [80–
83] to achieve an average breakdown pulses of approx-
imately 10–6 (pulses m)–1. At the same time, the Kil-
patrick criterion [84, 85], which is often used to esti-
mate the limiting values of RF fields in meter-wave-
length resonators, is poorly applicable for frequencies
in the centimeter and millimeter ranges.
• The value of the peak surface magnetic field
strength should not lead to pulsed heating with a peak
temperature of more than 50°C, which can damage
the structure [86]:
H t
2 by local thermal expansion of the material due to pulsed
ΔT = , (2)
σδ πρce k
where H  is the value of the surface magnetic field
strength, t is the duration of the RF pulse, σ is the con-
ductivity of the structure material, δ is the depth of the
skin layer, ρ is the density of the material, ce is the spe-
cific heat capacity of the material, and k is the thermal
conductivity of the material.
• According to studies carried out at CERN (Swit-
zerland) [87, 88], it also makes sense to keep the values
of the modified Poynting vector Sc below values of
5 MW/mm2 for a pulse duration of 200 ns:
Im{S}
Sc = Re{S} + , (3)
6 als placed in cylindrical resonators [90] showed a sig-
where S Is the Poynting vector.
• Finally, the maximum field values are scaled with
the required RF breakdown frequency (BDR) and pulse
duration as [89]:
INSTRUMENTS AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES
649
500 nm
2 mm
Fig. 12. A typical picture of damage to the surface of the
diaphragm of the accelerating structure due to high-RF
breakdown (photograph by Dolgasheva).
E 30t 5 = const. (4)
BDR
Achieving high gradients requires a deep revision of
the approach to the creation of accelerators, namely:
the use of new materials (hard copper alloys, nano-
structure, etc.), manufacturing methods (split struc-
tures, electron beam welding, and clamping struc-
tures) and working conditions (for example, cryo-
cooling). In all cases, understanding the RF break-
down mechanism is of decisive importance for the
development of reliable high-gradient structures.
The choice of materials, manufacturing technology,
and geometry of accelerating structures significantly
affects the characteristics of RF breakdown [83]. Recent
high-gradient research at SLAC shows that the use of
hard (unannealed) copper alloys offers significant advan-
tages over annealed copper [90]. In these studies, special
attention was paid to cyclic mechanical stresses created
RF heating [91]. The nature of this effect can be
described as follows. Surface magnetic fields cause
heating of the material of the accelerating structure,
which leads to a rapid (during the RF pulse duration)
increase in the surface temperature. The resulting
temperature gradient between the hot surface and the
cold volume leads to a material density gradient due to
thermal expansion, which in turn causes a transient
stress gradient in the material, since the hot expanding
surface is physically limited by the bulk material below
it. The character of this stress changes from compres-
sion to tension as the material is heated and cooled,
and the magnitude of the stress depends on the pulse
duration, peak power, and pulse duty cycle [92].
The test results of coupons made of various materi-
nificant increase in the threshold temperature of
pulsed heating, at which surface damage was observed
as a result of RF breakdown (see Table 3). This effect is
most pronounced in unannealed hard copper alloys: to a
higher degree CuAg and to a lower degree CuCr, and
Vol. 64 No. 5 2021
650
Breakdown probability, (pulse m)–1
100
Hard alloy
CuAg#3
101
102
103 Copper, 45 К
104
Soft copper
105
Hard alloy
106 CuAg#1
Hard
copper
107
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Gradient, MV/m
Fig. 13. The dependence of the RF breakdown probability
in X-band accelerating structures on the accelerating gra-
dient, measured as a result of experiments by scientists
from SLAC, United States under the leadership of Dolga-
shev (her drawing). Experiments were carried out for hard
and soft copper, copper-silver alloy, and copper cooled to
45 K. The duration of the RF pulse was 150 ns.
CuZr. In these samples, damage began to be observed
upon pulsed heating to 110°C, which is more than 2 times
higher than in annealed high conductivity oxygen-free
copper (OFHC).
After testing flat samples in a cylindrical resonator,
a group of SLAC scientists led by S. Tantawi and
V.A. Dolgashev tested RF breakdown in multicell
accelerating structures made of various materials [76].
The main conclusion of this experiment was that
structures made of hard copper alloys (for example,
CuAg) are superior to copper ones subjected to soft
heat treatment in terms of maximum accelerating gra-
dients and RF breakdown probabilities, as shown in
Fig. 13. Obviously, hard copper and copper–silver
alloys perform better at high gradients than soft
annealed copper. In addition, in structures made of a
copper–silver alloy it was possible to achieve a larger
accelerating gradient of approximately 210 MV/m.
In addition to the material and manufacturing
technology of the cells (or split halves) of the acceler-
ating structures, the quality of their connection plays
an important role; it must preserve the hardness, qual-
ity, and surface finish of the structure, which are
important for operation at high gradients. The two
most commonly used joining technologies, that is,
high-temperature brazing and diffusion welding, have
proven themselves well in the manufacture of nor-
mally conductive accelerators and have excellent RF,
mechanical and vacuum bonding characteristics.
Although the technology of high-temperature brazing
of copper accelerators has reached its maturity [93–
95], the corresponding thermal cycle anneals the cold
layer inside the material, leaving an extremely soft sur-
INSTRUMENTS AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES
KUTSAEV
face. This critical shortcoming has prompted the study
of alternative low-temperature joining methods that
provide reliable hermetically sealed vacuum seals [96],
such as electron beam welding [97, 98].
The most promising method is the combination of
split structure technology and electron beam welding.
This approach makes it possible to significantly reduce
the electric and magnetic fields at the junction of the
two halves (in the place where the RF currents flow)
and to simplify the assembly process [69]. If we com-
pare the separated structure with the classical one,
then in the last RF-connection of two cells is a surface
inhomogeneity in the place with the strongest mag-
netic field [99] and is the most vulnerable spot for RF
breakdown (see Fig. 14a ). In a split structure, the two
halves do not adjoin each other, but are separated by
an out-of-bounds gap, which does not allow RF
power to propagate in the direction of the joint at the
operating frequency, attenuating it to values less than
50–60 dB (Fig. 14b). Thus, the influence of the non-
uniformity of the joint on the characteristics of the
accelerating structure is significantly reduced.
Since the main mechanism for the occurrence of
RF breakdowns is the motion of crystal defects caused by
cyclic mechanical stress [100], methods for decreasing
this voltage can also help to reduce the probability of
breakdown. One way to reduce fatigue is to use impact
hardening, such as blasting with metal or ceramic
beads. Upon impact, the surface of the part is com-
pressed and plastically deformed, resulting in the for-
mation of a thin, hardened layer with an increased
density of defects and residual compressive stress
[101]. This hard surface improves fatigue properties as
it resists the cyclic tensile stress that causes crack for-
mation and growth. Unfortunately, mechanical shot
blasting leaves indentations on the surface, which
increases the surface roughness and requires addi-
tional polishing. In addition, work hardening is diffi-
cult to control because the impact velocity and surface
coverage of the shot are random and the impact envi-
ronment can potentially contaminate the surface of
the device.
To solve these problems, it is proposed to adapt a
new technology of Laser shock peening (LSP) [102],
widely used in the automotive industry, power genera-
tion, nuclear waste disposal and the aerospace indus-
try. As shown in Fig. 15 [103], LSP uses a powerful
nanosecond pulsed laser with a spot size of 3–5 mm to
create a localized plasma plume on the surface of the
material. The plasma layer is mechanically restrained
by an optically transparent conformal inertial com-
paction layer, such as water. The contained plasma has
enough energy to create a shockwave within the mate-
rial, while the ablative plastic layer deforms the surface
and creates a deeper and more controlled residual
stress profile than with traditional shot blasting.
Vol. 64 No. 5 2021
 NOVEL TECHNOLOGIES FOR COMPACT ELECTRON 651

(а) In addition, the LI apparatus can be mounted on a

robotic platform for selective and precise hardening of
Soldering seam large complex surfaces, such as accelerating structures
[104]. Since an ablation layer is used to absorb the
incident laser energy, LI can be used on highly reflec-
tive copper surfaces. After impact treatment, this layer
is chemically removed, followed by polishing and
RF current etching of the surface of the structure.
Another promising approach to increasing the gra-
dient when operating in frequency bands with avail-
able RF power sources and wavelengths of 1–10 cm is
the operation of accelerating structures at cryogenic
(<77 K) temperatures. At these temperatures, copper
becomes more durable and has a lower coefficient of
thermal expansion, which makes it possible to reduce
Diaphragm mechanical stresses and deformations due to pulsed
heating by an RF field [105]. Compared to room tem-
perature, copper accelerating structures cooled by liq-
(b) uid nitrogen have a lower surface resistance and a
Gap higher (by a factor of 2.5–2.7 [106]) shunt impednace
[107]. Cooling the structure to lower temperatures, for
example, with liquid neon, makes it possible to further
reduce the surface resistance of copper (see Fig. 16
[105]). Recent studies by scientists from UCLA and
SLAC [108, 109] have shown that electric fields with
strengths of up to 500 MV/m can be achieved on the
surface of accelerating structures in the X-band when
cooled to temperatures below 45 K (see Fig. 13 ).
Due to the high values of the intrinsic figure of
merit, cryogenic normally conducting structures have
good prospects for use in applied accelerators, where
EBW seam high peak beam currents are required. In the tradi-
RF current tional approach to the design of a high-current linear
accelerator, the power balance is determined for a sta-
tionary operation mode, so that the RF power trans-
mitted to the electron beam is equal to the RF power
transmitted from the source to the structure, minus
Fig. 14. Bonding of DLW accelerating structures: (a) the
classic cell-by-cell method, (b) split structure, edge- the resistive losses into the walls of the linear accelera-
welded by electron beam welding (EBW). The figure shows tor and power reflections from the structure. To over-
the contact areas and paths of RF currents. come the peak current limitations, it is possible to

Pressure wave

Laser beam High-pressure

λ ~ 1 μm plasma
25 J, 25 ns

Article Inertial water layer Article Inertial water layer

Ablation layer Ablation layer

(paint or tape) (paint or tape)

Fig. 15. A diagram of laser shock peening . The workpiece is covered with a protective ablation layer and an inertial tamping layer.
A laser pulse generates high pressure plasma on the surface of the part, forcing the shock wave through depth and plastically
deforming the material in its path (Curtiss–Wright pattern).

INSTRUMENTS AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES Vol. 64 No. 5 2021

652
Surface resistance, mΩ
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8 RRR = 50
6 RRR = 200
RRR = 1000
4 NSE (RRR = 200)
2 Fig. 17. Comparison of the effects of beam loading in sta-
0 high-frequency power in short-pulse (1) and long-pulse
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Temperature, К
Fig. 16. The dependence of the surface resistance of cop-
per, including the anomalous skin effect, on temperature
for different classes of the coefficient of residual copper
resistance (RRR, Residual-resistance ratio), measured at a
frequency of 5.712 GHz (figure based on data from SLAC,
United States).
accelerate short high current beams in a transient
regime. In this case, the resonator is filled with RF
power without loading by the beam; then, a short
high-current beam is accelerated, absorbing the
energy stored in the resonator (see Fig. 17). If the beam
duration is much shorter than the structure filling time,
then the effect of current loading will not have time to
develop, and the beam will receive the maximum energy,
even at high currents [74]. The formula for calculating the
maximum current that can be accelerated in the mode
of short pulses is as follows [110]:
PRF τ fill
I max = , (5)
Wmax τ bunch
where Wmax is the maximum increase in energy that a
particle can receive in an accelerating resonator with-
out a current load, τbunch is the beam duration, PRF is
the available RF power, and τfill is the cavity filling
time, defined as [111]
QL
τ fill = , (6)
πfRF
where QL is the loaded Q-factor of the resonator and
fRF is the resonant frequency. More details about vari-
ous accelerator development techniques and operating
modes can be found in [112].
CONCLUSIONS
The development of small and cost-effective accel-
erators is an important task; without its solution the
INSTRUMENTS AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES
KUTSAEV
Power, MW
12
10
2
8
1
6
4
4
2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time, μs
tionary (dashed lines) and transient (solid) modes: 1, 3,
(3) mode; 2, 4, beam power in short-pulse (2) and long-
pulse (4) mode. Due to the finite transient time of the
beam loading, much higher peak currents can be acceler-
ated using the same source power.
practical implementation of many modern and prom-
ising systems for various applications is impossible.
This review describes modern and promising technol-
ogies and tools developed with the participation of the
author that he used to create compact applied acceler-
ators. The main factors that determine the size of the
accelerator (including subsystems) and methods of
their reduction are considered. These methods include
increasing the operating frequency of accelerators using
compact microwave sources (magnetrons) or millime-
ter waves (gyrotrons), increasing the accelerating gradi-
ent using new materials and manufacturing technolo-
gies, and special designs of the accelerating structure, as
well as ways to increase their energy efficiency to reduce
the requirements for the power source.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The material of this review is based on information pub-
lished in open sources and reflects the author’s personal
view of current trends in accelerator development. Some
borrowed drawings and photographs taken from open
sources are used here. Figures whose sources are not given
in the text belong to the author and RadiaBeam Technolo-
gies (https://radiabeam.com).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank his colleagues from
RadiaBeam Technologies for their help in preparing the
material: S. Boucher, R. Agustsson, P. Carriere, A. Mur-
okh, and A.Yu. Smirnov. The author also thanks V.A. Dol-
gashev from the SLAC Stanford Accelerator Laboratory,
United States for much advice on the subject of this review.
Vol. 64 No. 5 2021
 NOVEL TECHNOLOGIES FOR COMPACT ELECTRON
REFERENCES
1. Kutsaev, S.V., Tech. Phys., 2021, vol. 66, no. 2, p. 161.
https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063784221020158
2. Evans, L. and Bryant, P., J. Instrum., 2008, vol. 3,
no. 8, p. 8001.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08001
3. Feder, T., Phys. Today, 2010, vol. 63, no. 2, p. 20.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3326981
4. Hamm, R.W. and Hamm, M.E., Phys. Today, 2011,
vol. 64, no. 6, p. 46.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3603918
5. Zavadtsev, A.A., Zavadtsev, D.A., Krasnov, A.A., So-
benin, N.P., Kutsaev, S.V., Churanov, D.V., and Ur-
bant, M.O., Instrum. Exp. Tech., 2011, vol. 54, no. 2,
pp. 241–248.
https://doi.org/10.1134/S0020441211020114
6. Kutsaev, S.V., Agustsson, R., Arodzero, A., Berry, R.,
Boucher, S., Diego, A., Gavryushkin, D., Hartzell, J.J.,
Lanza, R.C., Smirnov, A.Yu., Verma, A., and Ziskin, V.,
Radiat. Phys. Chem., 2021, vol. 183, p. 109398.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.109398
7. Arodzero, A., Boucher, S., Kutsaev, S.V., and Ziskin, V.,
IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., 2017, vol. 64, no. 7, p. 1629.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2016.2638967
8. Kutsaev, S.V., Agustsson, R., Arodzero, A., Boucher, S.,
Burstein, P., and Smirnov, A.Yu., AIP Conf. Proc.,
2019, vol. 2160, p. 050014.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5127706
9. Kutsaev, S.V., Agustsson, R., Arodzero, A., Boucher, S.,
Harzell, J.J., Murokh, A., O’Shea, F., and Smirnov, A.Yu.,
Phys. Procedia, 2017, vol. 90, p. 115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2017.09.036
10. Yu, V.Y., Landers, A., Woods, K., Nguyen, D., Cao, M.,
Du, D., Chin, R.K., Sheng, K., and Kaprealian, T.B.,
Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys., 2018, vol. 101, no. 1,
p. 144.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.01.048
11. Kutsaev, S.V., Agustsson, R., Arodzero, A., Berry, R.,
Bezhanov, A., Boucher, S., Chimalpopoca, O., Diego, A.,
Faillace, L., Gavryushkin, D., Harrison, M., Hartzell, J.J.,
McNevin, J., Ruelas, M.A., Smirnov, A.Yu., et al., Ra-
diat. Phys. Chem., 2021, vol. 184, p. 109494.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.109494
12. Olivo, R.A., Da Silva, M.V., Garcia, F.B., Soares, S.,
Rodrigues, V., and Morales-Souza, H., Rev. Bras. He-
matol. Hemoter., 2015, vol. 37, no. 3, p. 153.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjhh.2015.03.001
13. Bendahan, J., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect.
A, 2020, vol. 954, p. 161120.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2018.08.079
14. Fanchi, J.R., Integrated Reservoir Asset Management,
Houston, TX: Gulf Professional Publ., 2010.
15. Cameron, J.F. and Clayton, C.G., Radioisotope Instru-
ments, Oxford: Pergamon, 1971.
16. Global Markets for Sterilization Technologies, BCC
Publ., 2017.
17. Low- and Middle-Income Countries. https://well-
come.org/grant-funding/guidance/lowand-middle-
income-countries.
INSTRUMENTS AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES
653
18. World Population by Income, Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/interac-
tives/global-population-by-income/.
19. Bassaler, J.M., Capdevila, J.M., Gal, O., Lainé, F.,
Nguyen, A., Nicolaï, J.P., and Umiastowski, K., Nucl.
Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B, 1992, vol. 68,
nos. 1–4, p. 92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-583X(92)96056-5
20. Bystrov, P.A., Gordeev, A.V., Kolokolova, A.Yu.,
Zav’yalov, M.A., Ilyukhina, N.V., Molin, A.A., Pav-
lov, Yu.S., Polyakova, S.P., Prokopenko, A.V., and
Filippovich, V.P., Yad. Fiz. Inzh., 2018, vol. 9, no. 2,
p. 211.
21. Massat, M.B., Appl. Radiat. Oncol., 2019, vol. 8, no. 2,
p. 44.
22. Chernyaev, A.P. and Varzar, S.M., Phys. At. Nucl.,
2014, vol. 77, no. 10, pp. 1203–1215.
https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063778814100032
23. Brady, L.W. and Yaeger, T.E., Encyclopedia of Radia-
tion Oncology, Berlin: Springer, 2013.
24. Hanna, S., RF Linear Accelerators for Medical and In-
dustrial Applications, Boston: Artech House, 2012.
25. Khan, F.M., The Physics of Radiation Therapy, Phila-
delphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2009.
26. e2v Magnetrons. https://www.teledyne-e2v.com/
products/rf-power/medical-magnetrons/.
27. Scandinova Systems. https://scandinovasystems.com/.
28. CPI Power Tubes. https://www.cpii.com/product.cfm
/8/2.
29. Belousov, A.V., Bliznyuk, U.A., Varzar’, S.M., Zag-
oruiko, M.V., Osipov, A.S., and Chernyaev, A.P., Med.
Fiz., 2014, vol. 61, no. 1, p. 113.
30. Sobenin, N.P., Kaminskii, V.I., and Lalayan, M.V.,
Uskoryayushchie struktury (Accelerating Structures),
Moscow: National Research Nuclear Univ. “Moscow
Engineering Physics Institute,” 2005.
31. Andrés, S.V., MSc Thesis, Valencia: Univ. de Valencia,
2013.
32. Wangler, T.P., RF Linear Accelerators, John Wiley and
Sons, 2008.
33. Handbook of Medical Imaging, vol. 1: Physics and Psy-
chophysics, Van Metter, R.L., Beutel, J., and Kundel, H.L.,
Eds., SPIE, 2000.
34. L-3 Magnetrons. https://www.l3harris.com/all-capa-
bilities/magnetrons.
35. Frejdovich, I.A., Nevsky, P.V., Sakharov, V.P., Vo-
rob’ev, M.Yu., Knapp, E.A., Trower, W.P., Yamada, H.,
Kleev, A., Alimov, A.S., Shvedunov, V.I., Chernousov, Yu.D.,
Shebolaev, I.V., Gavrish, Yu.N., and Nikolaev, V.M., Proc.
2006 IEEE Int. Vacuum Electronics Conference
IVEC/IVESC, Monterey, CA, 2006, p. 307.
https://doi.org/10.1109/IVELEC.2006.1666306
36. Shvedunov, V.I., Alimov, A.S., Ermakov, A.N., Kam-
anin, A.N., Khankin, V.V., Kurilik, A.S., Ovchinniko-
va, L.Yu., Pakhomov, N.I., Shvedunov, N.V., Yurov, D.S.,
Shvedunov, I.V., and Simonov, A.S., Radiat. Phys.
Chem., 2019, vol. 159, p. 95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2019.02.044
37. Gycom. http://www.gycom.ru/products/pr1.html.
38. Nezhevenko, O.A., Yakovlev, V.P., LaPointe, M.A.,
Kozyrev, E.V., Shchelkunov, S.V., and Hirshfield, J.L., Proc.
Vol. 64 No. 5 2021
654 KUTSAEV
IEEE Particle Accelerator Conference, Knoxville, T.N., 2005,
vol. 2005, p. 1922.
https://doi.org/10.1109/PAC.2005.1590958
39. Faillace, L., Behtouei, M., Dolgashev, V.A., Spataro, B.,
Torrisi, G., and Variola, A., J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 2020,
vol. 1596, no. 1, p. 012022.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1596/1/012022
40. Tolkachev, A.A., Levitan, B.A., Solovjev, G.K., Vey-
tsel, V.V., and Farber, V.E., IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst.
Mag., 2000, vol. 15, no. 7, p. 25.
https://doi.org/10.1109/62.854021
41. Kumar, N., Singh, U., Singh, T.P., and Sinha, A.K., J.
Fusion Energy, 2011, vol. 30, no. 4, p. 257.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10894-010-9373-0
42. Thumm, M., Fusion Eng. Des., 2003, vols. 66–68, p. 69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-3796(03)00132-7
43. Choi, E.M., Marchewka, C., Mastovsky, I., Shapiro, M.A.,
Sirigiri, J.R., and Temkin, R.J., J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.,
2005, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 1.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/25/1/001
44. Kutsaev, S.V., Jacobson, B., Smirnov, A.Yu., Camp-
ese, T., Dolgashev, V.A., Goncharik, V., Harrison, M.,
Murokh, A., Nanni, E., Picard, J., Ruelas, M., and
Schaub, S.C., Phys. Rev. Appl., 2019, vol. 11, no. 3,
p. 034052.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.11.034052
45. Jacob, J., CERN Yellow Report CERN-2015-003, 2015,
pp. 197–216.
https://doi.org/10.5170/CERN-2015-003.197
46. Formicone, G. and Custer, J., AIP Conf. Proc., 2019,
vol. 2160, no. 1, p. 040010.
47. Marchand, P., Proc. Int. Particle Accelerator Confer-
ence, IPAC’17, Copenhagen, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5127690.
48. Heid, O. and Hughes, T., Proc. 25th Int. Linear Accel-
erator Conference, LINAC2010, Tsukuba, 2011, p. 905.
49. Smirnov, A.Y., Krasnov, A., Nikolskiy, K., Tikhomiro-
va, N., Ivanov, E., Heid, O., and Hughes, T., Proc. 26th
Int. Linear Accelerator Conference, LINAC2012, Tel
Aviv, 2012, p. 672.
50. 2.45 GHz Solid State Module.
https://www.ec21.com/product-details/Solid-state
Microwave-Generator-2450mhz–11198977.html.
51. Agustsson, R., Boucher, S., and Kutsaev, S., US Patent
WO2018222839A1, 2018.
52. Agustsson, R., Boucher, S., and Kutsaev, S., US Patent
WO2020061204A1, 2019.
53. Derby, B. and Wallach, E.R., J. Mater. Sci., 1984,
vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 3140–3148.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00549797
54. Grudiev, A. and Wuensch, W., Proc. 22nd Int. Confer-
ence, LINAC2004, Luebeck, 2004, p. 779.
55. Syratchev, I., Schulte, D., Adli, E., and Taborelli, M.,
Proc. IEEE Particle Accelerator Conference PAC’07, Al-
buquerque, NM, 2007, p. 2194.
https://doi.org/10.1109/PAC.2007.4441194
56. Kutsaev, S.V., Agustsson, R., Arodzero, A., Boucher, S.,
Murokh, A., and Smirnov, A.Yu., Nucl. Instrum. Meth-
ods Phys. Res., Sect. B, 2019, vol. 459, p. 179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2019.08.029
INSTRUMENTS AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES
57. Pearce, R. and Liam, W., ITER Vacuum Handbook,
ITER Org., 2019.
58. Hinchliffe, I. and Battaglia, M., Phys. Today, 2004,
vol. 57, no. 9, p. 49.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1809092
59. Murayama, H. and Peskin, M.E., Annu. Rev. Nucl.
Part. Sci., 1996, vol. 46, no. 1, p. 533.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nucl.46.1.533
60. Wilson, I., Phys. Rep., 2004, vols. 403–404, nos. 1–6,
p. 365.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.028
61. Dal Forno, M., Dolgashev, V., Bowden, G., Clarke, C.,
Hogan, M., McCormick, D., Novokhatski, A., Spata-
ro, B., Weathersby, S., and Tantawi, S.G., Phys. Rev.
Accel. Beams, 2016, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 011301.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.19.011301
62. Chou, P.J., Bowden, G.B., Copeland, M.R., Henke, H.,
Menegat, A., and Siemann, R.H., Proc. IEEE Particle
Accelerator Conference PAC’97, Vancouver, 1997, vol. 1,
p. 464.
https://doi.org/10.1109/PAC.1997.749688
63. Chou, P.J., Bowden, G.B., Copeland, M.R., Farvid, A.,
Kirby, R.E., Menegat, A., Pearson, C., Shere, L., Sie-
mann, R.H., Spencer, J.E., and Whittum, D.H., AIP
Conf. Proc., 2009, vol. 398, no. 1, p. 501.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.53064
64. Whitehouse, D.J., Meas. Sci. Technol., 1997, vol. 8,
no. 9, p. 955.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/8/9/002
65. Smirnov, A.V., Agustsson, R., Berry, R., Boucher, S.,
Chen, Y., Kutsaev, S., and O’Shea, F., Nucl. Instrum.
Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 2020, vol. 953, p. 163160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2019.163160
66. Langeveld, W.G.J., Gozani, T., Ryge, P., Sinha, S.,
Shaw, T., and Strellis, D., AIP Conf. Proc., 2013,
vol. 1525, p. 690.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4802416
67. Kluchevskaia, Y.D. and Polozov, S.M., Proc. 20th Int.
Workshop on Beam Dynamics and Optimization,
BDO’14, St. Petersburg, 2014, p. 86.
https://doi.org/10.1109/BDO.2014.6890033
68. Zha, H. and Grudiev, A., Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams,
2017, vol. 20, p. 042001.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.20.042001
69. Zha, H., Dolgashev, V., and Grudiev, A., Proc. 6th Int.
Particle Accelerator Conference IPAC’15, Richmond,
VA, 2015, p. 2147.
https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-IPAC2015-TUP-
TY054
70. EDM Intelligent Solutions. https://www.edmdept.com
/manufacturing-services/.
71. Vanderauwera, W., Garzon, M., Aerts, T., Klocke, F.,
and Lauwers, B., Proc. 8th Int. Conference on Multi-
Material Micro Manufacture, Oyonnax, 2010, p. 285.
https://doi.org/10.3850/978-981-07-0319-6_242
72. Shanahan, J., Trends in Micro Machining Technologies,
2004. https://www.makino.com/resources/content-li-
brary/article/archive/trends-in-micromachining-
technologies/315.
73. Howard, S. and Starovoitova, V.N., Appl. Radiat. Isot.,
2015, vol. 96, p. 162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2014.12.003
Vol. 64 No. 5 2021
 NOVEL TECHNOLOGIES FOR COMPACT ELECTRON
74. Whitham, K., Anamkath, H., Evans, K., Lyons, S.,
Palmer, D., Miller, R., Trea, P., and Zante, T., Proc.
1992 Linear Accelerator Conference, Ottawa, 1992,
p. 618.
75. Bacci, A., Alesini, D., Antici, P., Bellaveglia, M., Boni, R.,
Chiadroni, E., Cianchi, A., Curatolo, C., Di Pirro, G.,
Esposito, A., Ferrario, M., Gallo, A., Gatti, G., Ghigo, A.,
Migliorati, M., et al., J. Appl. Phys., 2013, vol. 113,
no. 19, p. 194508.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4805071
76. Dolgashev, V.A., Proc. 2nd European Advanced Accelerator
Concepts Workshop (EAAC 2015), Isola d’Elba, 2015.
https://agenda.infn.it/event/8146/contributions/
71603/attachments/51963/61378/Dolgashev_
EAAC2012_High_gradient_metallic_structures_final
_14Sep2015. pdf.
77. Dolgashev, V.A., Faillace, L., Higashi, Y., Marcelli, A.,
Spataro, B., and Bonifazi, R., J. Instrum., 2020, vol. 15,
no. 1, p. P01029.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/15/01/P01029
78. Döbert, S., Proc. Int. Power Modulator Symposium and
High Voltage Workshop, San Francisco, CA, 2004,
p. 60.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MODSYM.2004.1433506
79. Kovermann, J.W., PhD Thesis, Aachen: Rheinisch-
Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen, 2010.
80. Kutsaev, S.V., Agustsson, R., Boucher, S., Fischer, R.,
Murokh, A., Mustapha, B., Nassiri, A., Ostroumov, P.N.,
Plastun, A., Savin, E., and Smirnov, A.Yu., Phys. Rev.
Accel. Beams, 2017, vol. 20, no. 12, p. 120401.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.20.120401
81. Kutsaev, S.V., Agustsson, R., Berry, R., Borland, M.,
Chao, D., Chimalpopoca, O., Gavryushkin, D., Gu-
sarova, M., Hartzell, J., Meyer, D., Nassiri, A., Smir-
nov, A.Yu., Smith, T., Sun, Y., Verma, A., et al., Rev.
Sci. Instrum., 2020, vol. 91, no. 4, p. 044701.
https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0002765
82. Othman, M.A.K., Picard, J., Schaub, S., Dolgashev, V.A.,
Lewis, S.M., Neilson, J., Haase, A., Jawla, S., Spataro, B.,
Temkin, R.J., Tantawi, S., and Nanni, E.A., Appl.
Phys. Lett., 2020, vol. 117, no. 7, p. 073502.
https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0011397
83. Dolgashev, V., Tantawi, S., Higashi, Y., and Spataro, B.,
Appl. Phys. Lett., 2010, vol. 97, no. 17, p. 171501.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3505339
84. Kilpatrick, W.D., Rev. Sci. Instrum., 1957, vol. 28, no. 10,
p. 824.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1715731
85. Peter, W., Faehl, R.J., Kadish, A., and Thode, L.E.,
IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., 1983, vol. 30, no. 4, p. 3454.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1983.4336689
86. Dolgashev, V.A., Proc. IEEE Particle Accelerator Con-
ference PAC’03, Portland, OR, 2003, vol. 2, p. 1267.
https://doi.org/10.1109/PAC.2003.1289674
87. Kubiak, T., Br. J. Radiol., 2016, vol. 89, no. 1066,
p. 20150275.
https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150275
88. Grudiev, A. and Wuensch, W., Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams,
2009, vol. 12, p. 102001.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.12.102001
89. Degiovanni, A., Bonomi, R., Garlasché, M., Verdú-
Andrés, S., Wegner, R., and Amaldi, U., Nucl. Instrum.
INSTRUMENTS AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES
655
Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 2018, vol. 890, p. 1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2018.01.079
90. Laurent, L., Tantawi, S., Dolgashev, V., Nantista, C.,
Higashi, Y., Aicheler, M., Heikkinen, S., and Wuen-
sch, W., Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.–Accel. Beams, 2011,
vol. 14, no. 4, p. 041001.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.14.041001
91. Pritzkau, D.P., RF Pulsed Heating, Stanford Univ.,
2001.
92. Gamzina, D., Kozina, M., Mehta, A., Nanni, E.A.,
Tantawi, S., Welander, P.B., Horn, T., and Ledford, C.,
Proc. 2019 Int. Vacuum Electronics Conference, IVEC
2019, Busan, 2019, p. 1.
https://doi.org/10.1109/IVEC.2019.87447501
93. Turner, R.B. and Ungrin, J., Proc. 1981 Linear Acceler-
ator Conference, Santa Fe, NM, 1981, p. 77.
94. Hansborough, L.D., Clark, W.L., DePaula, R.A.,
Martinez, F.A., Roybal, P.L., Wilkerson, L.C., and
Young, L.M., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect.
B, 1987, vols. 24–25, part 2, p. 863.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-583X(87)80266-5
95. Singh, R., Pant, K.K., Lal, S., Yadav, D.P., Garg, S.R.,
Raghuvanshi, V.K., and Mundra, G., J. Phys.: Conf.
Ser., 2012, vol. 390, no. 1, p. 012025.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/390/1/012025
96. Simakov, E.I., Dolgashev, V.A., and Tantawi, S.G.,
Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 2018, vol. 907,
p. 221.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2018.02.085
97. Węglowski, M.S., Błacha, S., and Phillips, A., Vacuum,
2016, vol. 130, p. 72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2016.05.004
98. Polyakov, V.A. and Shchedrin, I.S., Proc. 4th European
Particle Accelerator Conference, EPAC’94, London,
1994, p. 1489.
99. Gusarova, M.A., Kaminsky, V.I., Kravchuk, L.V., Kut-
saev, S.V., Lalayan, M.V., Sobenin, N.P., and Tara-
sov, S.G., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A,
2009, vol. 599, no. 1, p. 100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2008.09.047
100.Engelberg, E.Z., Yashar, A.B., Ashkenazy, Y., Assaf, M.,
and Popov, I., Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams, 2019, vol. 22,
no. 8, p. 083501.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevAccel-
Beams.22.083501
101.Callister, W.D. and Rethwisch, D.G., Materials Sci-
ence and Engineering: An Introduction, New York: Wi-
ley, 2018.
102.Guo, Y.B., Numerical Simulations⎯Applications, Ex-
amples and Theory, InTech, 2011.
103.Curtiss-Wright Laser Peening. https://cwst.com/laser-
peening/.
104.Bohm, M., Kaufman, J., Brajer, J., and Rostohar, D.,
MM Sci. J., 2019, vol. 2019, p. 3643.
https://doi.org/10.17973/MMSJ.2019_12_2019115
105.Nasr, M., Nanni, E., Breidenbach, M., Weathersby, S.,
Oriunno, M., and Tantawi, S., 2020. arXiv:2011.00391.
106.Saversky, A.J. and Shchedrin, I.S., Proc. IEEE Particle
Accelerator Conference PAC'93, Washington, DC, 1993,
vol. 2, p. 1030.
Vol. 64 No. 5 2021
656 KUTSAEV

107.Benard, J., Helmy El Minyawi, N., and Nguyen, T.V.,
Rev. Phys. Appl., 1978, vol. 13, no. 10, p. 483. doi ff
https://doi.org/10.1051/rphys-
ap:019780013010048300ff.ffjpa-00244478f
108.Rosenzweig, J.B., Cahill, A., Dolgashev, V., Emma, C.,
Fukasawa, A., Li, R., Limborg, C., Maxson, J., Musu-
meci, P., Nause, A., Pakter, R., Pompili, R., Roussel, R.,
Spataro, B., and Tantawi, S., Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams,
2019, vol. 22, no. 2, p. 023403.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevAccel-
Beams.22.023403
109.Cahill, A.D., Rosenzweig, J.B., Dolgashev, V.A., Tan-
tawi, S.G., and Weathersby, S., Phys. Rev. Accel.
Beams, 2018, vol. 21, no. 10, p. 102002.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevAccel-
Beams.21.102002
110. Kelliher, M.G., Nỳgard, J.C., and Ghle, A.J., IRE
Trans. Nucl. Sci., 1956, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 1.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS2.1956.4315527
111. Milovanov, O.S. and Sobenin, N.P., Tekhnika sverkh-
vysokikh chastot (Microwave Technique), Moscow: At-
omizdat, 1980.
112. Kutsaev, S.V., Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 2021, vol. 136, no. 4,
p. 446.
https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-01312-3

INSTRUMENTS AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES Vol. 64 No. 5 2021