1. Reduced Gun Simulations 1. Comparison 60MV/m Gun vs 50MV/m Gun, Flat Top Laser Pulse 2. Comparison for the worst case: Gun50+Gauss Laser Pulse 3. Summary and Outlook Yauhen Kot Summary for the S2E Meeting 28.10.2013

2. Reduced Gun Simulations 1. Comparison Gun60 vs Gun50, Flat Top Laser Pulse 2. Comparison for the worst case: Gun50+Gauss Laser Pulse 3. Summary and Outlook

3. XFEL Photo Injector Setup settings used in the simulations RF-GunCathode LaserBoosterASTRA Field Balance= 1.12Temporal Profile: Flat Top 2/20\2ps Gauss 10-14ps FWHM ACC1: 8xTESLA cavities: 1 st cavity centered at z=4.0401m  1 st iris at z=3.637m 200K particles E cath =50.00-60.00MV/m Phi=-1.9 deg Transverse: radial homogeneous E peak =34.42MV/m Phase=6.31 deg Rotational symmetry Mesh: NradxNlong=40x100 Solenoid: main centered at z=0.276m Bucking coil at compensation Tuned Parameters: -Main solenoid peak field -Laser rms spot size -Rms bunch length (?) -Gun launch phase Goals & Tasks: - minimized transverse emittance at the 1 st quadrupole (z=14.44m) - matchable optics   <60m, |  |<4 @1 st quadrupole

4. Charge1nC Max electric field in the gun, [MV/m] 5060 Laser formFT 2/20\2 WPMaxB,[T]0.18940.2226 XYrms,[mm]0.5800.440  pr s=14.44m, [mrad] 1.0350.709  sl,peak s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.9550.626  sl,av s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.9050.624  sl,min s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.5380.439  sl,max s=14.44m, [mrad] 1.0300.704  E sl,peak,rms [keV] 2.5551.238 Ip, [A]43.645.8  rms, [mm] 2.1682.048 Beam optical functions after 1 st accelerating module ,[m] 22.188.73  -3.990.030  +46.0 % projected emittance growth  +52.6% growth of emittance at the current peak  +45.0% average slice emittance growth Operation with 1nC. Comparison Gun50 vs Gun60

5. 1nC at XFEL Injector with 50MeV and 60MeV Gun. Emittance Comparison Gun60Gun50 Working PointMaxB, [T]0.22260.1894 XYrms,[mm]0.4400.580 emittance ,[m -6 ] 0.70911.0120 rms bunch lenngth ,[mm] 2.0482.094 Beam optical functions after the 1 st accelerating module ,[m] 8.72922.18  0.030-3.99

6. 1nC at XFEL Injector with 50MV/m and 60MV/m Gun. Emittance Stability 50MV/m Gun: stable emittance but more extreme beam optical functions

7. 1nC at XFEL Injector with 50MV/m and 60MV/m Gun. Comparison of Beam Optical Functions

8. Charge500pC Max electric field in the gun, [MV/m] 5060 Laser formFT 2/20\2 WPMaxB,[T]0.18920.2224 XYrms,[mm]0.3600.285  pr s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.5440.439  sl,peak s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.5430.393  sl,av s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.5180.386  sl,min s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.3360.274  sl,max s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.5720.426  E sl,peak,rms [keV] 1.2090.735 Ip, [A]23.524.0  rms, [mm] 1.9841.944 Beam optical functions after 1 st accelerating module ,[m] 7.95719.81  -1.113-0.605 Operation with 500pC. Comparison Gun50 vs Gun60  +23.9 % projected emittance growth  +38.2% growth of emittance at the current peak  +34.2% average slice emittance growth

9. Charge250pC Max electric field in the gun, [MV/m] 5060 Laser formFT 2/20\2 WPMaxB,[T]0.18880.2220 XYrms,[mm]0.2300.180  pr s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.3290.298  sl,peak s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.3250.252  sl,av s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.3080.246  sl,min s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.2120.175  sl,max s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.3360.268  E sl,peak,rms [keV] 0.6330.575 Ip, [A]12.3112.47  rms, [mm] 1.8801.884 Beam optical functions after 1 st accelerating module ,[m] 12.7742.13  -0.706-2.305 Operation with 250pC. Comparison Gun50 vs Gun60  +10.4% projected emittance growth  +29.0% growth of emittance at the current peak  +25.2% average slice emittance growth

10. Operation with 100pC. Comparison Gun50 vs Gun60 With 1.4% growth of the projected emittance for Gun60 in order to get matchable beam optical functions Charge100pC Max electric field in the gun, [MV/m] 5060 Laser formFT 2/20\2 WPMaxB,[T]0.18820.2218 XYrms,[mm]0.12280.133  pr s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.18910.1945  sl,peak s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.1750.137  sl,av s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.1640.138  sl,min s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.1200.116  sl,max s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.1770.143  E sl,peak,rms [keV] 0.4730.367 Ip, [A]5.055.56  rms, [mm] 1.8151.647 Beam optical functions after 1 st accelerating module ,[m] 49.8939.5  -2.568-2.013  -2.7% projected emittance growth  +27.7% growth of emittance at the current peak  +18.8% average slice emittance growth

11. 100pC at XFEL Injector with 50MeV and 60MeV Gun. Emittance Comparison Scan size:  MaxB x  XYrms =0.0025T x 0.080mm; Color range: 0.1891-0.3306  m Gun60Gun50 Working PointMaxB, [T]0.22180.1882 XYrms,[mm]0.1330.1228 emittance ,[m -6 ] 0.19450.1891 rms bunch lenngth ,[mm] 1.6401.891 Beam optical functions after the 1 st accelerating module ,[m] 39.549.89  -2.013-2.568

12. 100pC at XFEL Injector with 50MV/m and 60MV/m Gun. Comparison of Beam Optical Functions

13. Table: Change of some bunch parameters in % if the peak electric field of the gun is reduced from 60MV/m to 50MV/m. Laser Pulse profiles is Flat Top 2/20\2ps in both cases Bunch Charge1nC500pC250pC100pC  pr, [%] 46.023.910.4-2.7  sl,peak,[%] 52.638.229.027.7  sl,av, [%] 45.034.225.218.8  E) sl,peak, [%] 10664.510.118.9 Summary: Operation Gun60 vs Gun50 Flat Top Laser Pulse 2/20\2ps  Bunches with higher charge suffer more, but the claimed design parameters may be hold

14. Reduced Gun Simulations 1. Comparison Gun60 vs Gun50, Flat Top Laser Pulse 2. Comparison for the worst case: Gun50+Gauss Laser Pulse 3. Summary and Outlook Worst case: - Maximum peak electric field of the gun by 50MV/m - Longitudinal laser pulse profile: gaussian with 14ps FWHM (rms 5.95ps)

15. Operation with 1nC: 60MV/m Gun + FT 2/20\2ps vs 50MV/m Gun + Gauss 14ps FWHM  +112% projected emittance growth  +115% growth of emittance at the current peak  +67.8% average slice emittance growth  Different rms bunch length Charge1nC Max electric field in the gun, [MV/m] 5060 Laser formGauss 14ps FWHM FT 2/20\2 ps WPMaxB,[T]0.18890.2226 XYrms,[mm]0.4600.440  pr s=14.44m, [mrad] 1.5010.7091  sl,peak s=14.44m, [mrad] 1.3520.629  sl,av s=14.44m, [mrad] 1.0640.634  sl,min s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.5460.439  sl,max s=14.44m, [mrad] 1.380.704  E sl,av,rms [keV] 2.751.1 Ip, [A]41.345.8  rms, [mm] 2.3842.048 Beam optical functions after 1 st accelerating module ,[m] 19.648.729  -2.4190.030

16. Charge1nC Max electric field in the gun, [MV/m] 5060 Laser formGauss 10ps FWHM FT 2/20\2 ps WPMaxB,[T]0.18910.2226 XYrms,[mm]0.5050.440  pr s=14.44m, [mrad] 1.8870.7091  sl,peak s=14.44m, [mrad] 1.6810.629  sl,av s=14.44m, [mrad] 1.2710.634  sl,min s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.6650.439  sl,max s=14.44m, [mrad] 1.6980.704  E sl,peak,rms [keV] 3.361.1 Ip, [A]48.045.8  rms, [mm] 2.0542.048 Beam optical functions after 1 st accelerating module ,[m] 20.498.729  -2.5350.030 Operation with 1nC: 60MV/m Gun + FT 2/20\2ps vs 50MV/m Gun + Gauss 10ps FWHM  +166% projected emittance growth  +167% growth of emittance at the current peak  +100% average slice emittance growth  Equal rms bunch length

17. Operation with 250pC: 60MV/m Gun + FT 2/20\2ps vs 50MV/m Gun + Gauss 14ps FWHM Charge250pC Max electric field in the gun, [MV/m] 5060 Laser formGauss 14ps FWHM FT 2/20\2 ps WPMaxB,[T]0.18840.2220 XYrms,[mm]0.21750.180  pr s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.4350.298  sl,peak s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.4300.252  sl,av s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.3530.246  sl,min s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.2010.175  sl,max s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.4470.268  E sl,peak,rms [keV] 0.8380.575 Ip, [A]12.5612.47  rms, [mm] 1.9721.884 Beam optical functions after 1 st accelerating module ,[m] 21.4542.13  -1.755-2.305  +46.0% projected emittance growth  +70.6% growth of emittance at the current peak  +43.5% average slice emittance growth

18. Charge100pC Max electric field in the gun, [MV/m] 5060 Laser formGauss 14ps FWHM FT 2/20\2 ps WPMaxB,[T]0.18800.2218 XYrms,[mm]0.1280.133  pr s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.2470.1945  sl,peak s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.2040.137  sl,av s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.1790.138  sl,min s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.1190.116  sl,max s=14.44m, [mrad] 0.2190.143  E sl,peak,rms [keV] 0.4760.367 Ip, [A]5.495.56  rms, [mm] 1.8151.647 Beam optical functions after 1 st accelerating module ,[m] 38.4739.5  -2.425-2.013 Operation with 100pC: 60MV/m Gun + FT 2/20\2ps vs 50MV/m Gun + Gauss 14ps FWHM  +27% projected emittance growth  +48.9% growth of emittance at the current peak  +29.7% average slice emittance growth  Different rms bunch length

19. Table: Change of some bunch parameters if the peak electric field of the gun is reduced from 60MV/m to 50MV/m and the Laser pulse profiles is changed from Flat Top 2/20\2ps to Gaussian. Bunch Charge1nC250pC100pC Laser Pulse Length FWHM, [ps] 141014  pr, [%] 11216646.027.0  sl,peak,[%] 11516770.648.9  sl,av, [%] 67.810043.529.7  E) sl,peak, [%] 15020545.729.7  rms, [%] 16.40.34.710.2 Summary: Operation Gun60 FT 2/20\2ps vs Gun50 Gaussian 14ps FWHM

20. Reduced Gun Simulations 1. Comparison Gun60 vs Gun50, Flat Top Laser Pulse 2. Comparison for the worst case: Gun50+Gauss Laser Pulse 3. Summary and Outlook

21. 1. Comparison for 60MV/m Gun + FT 2/20\2 vs 50MV/m Gun + FT 2/20\2 done  50MV/m Gun most probably fits the claimed design parameters of the beam 2. Comparison for 60MV/m Gun + FT 2/20\2 vs 50MV/m Gun + Gauss 14 ps FWHM done for 1nC, 250pC and 100pC bunch charges  severe emittance growth for the nominal design bunch charge of 1nC. doesn’t fit any more in the claimed design parameters of the beam.  different bunch length. Gaussian pulse must be shorter than 14ps FWHM to produce the bunch of the same length as in the flat top case Summary Outlook 1.Finish comparison for the “worst case”: 500pC bunch charge, equal bunch length at the exit 2. Implement the laser pulse form received from the laser group.