Undulator Physics Issues Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLS July 11, 2007

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Adnan Doyuran a, Joel England a, Chan Joshi b, Pietro Musumeci a, James Rosenzweig a, Sergei Tochitsky b, Gil Travish a, Oliver Williams a a UCLA/Particle.
Advertisements

1 Optimal focusing lattice for XFEL undulators: Numerical simulations Vitali Khachatryan, Artur Tarloyan CANDLE, DESY/MPY
P. Emma FAC Meeting 7 Apr Low-Charge LCLS Operating Point Including FEL Simulations P. Emma 1, W. Fawley 2, Z. Huang 1, C.
October 12, 2006 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLS Undulator Good Field Region and Tuning Strategy 1 Undulator Good Field Region and.
Performance Analysis Using Genesis 1.3 Sven Reiche LCLS Undulator Parameter Workshop Argonne National Laboratory 10/24/03.
MERLIN 3.0 only considers first order (dipole) modes. Kick is linearly proportional to offset. For offsets close to the axis this is a reasonable approximation.
Zachary Wolf Undulator Tuning June 17, 2008 Undulator Tuning Status Z. Wolf, S. Anderson, R. Colon, S. Jansson, S.Kaplunenko,
Wm. Fawley LCLS FAC April Sven Reiche Effects of AC Resistive-Wall Wake Upon LCLS SASE Performance: Numerical.
Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLS FAC 1 Undulator Physics Update Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC.
LCLS Undulators October 14, 2004 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / SSRL MMF Review Introduction to the LCLS Undulators Heinz-Dieter Nuhn,
Z. Huang LCLS FAC April Effect of AC RW Wake on SASE - Analytical Treatment Z. Huang, G. Stupakov see SLAC-PUB-10863, to.
Isaac Vasserman Magnetic Measurements and Tuning 10/14/ I. Vasserman LCLS Magnetic Measurements and Tuning.
X-Ray Diagnostics for the LCLS Jan , 2004 UCLA.
Undulator Overview FEL Performance Assessment
Undulator Physics Update October 12, 2004 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLS Facility Advisory Committee Meeting Undulator Physics Update.
October 30, 2007 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLS Undulator Physics Issues 1 Undulator Physics Issues Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLS.
A U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Laboratory Operated by The University of Chicago Argonne National Laboratory Office of Science U.S. Department.
Overview of Proposed Parameter Changes Linac Coherent Light Source Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory Stanford Linear Accelerator.
April 16, 2007 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLS Undulator Physics Issues 1 Undulator Physics Issues Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLS.
A U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Laboratory Operated by The University of Chicago Argonne National Laboratory Office of Science U.S. Department.
A U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Laboratory Operated by The University of Chicago Argonne National Laboratory Office of Science U.S. Department.
SuperConducting Undulator (SCU) R&D Motivation and Status P. Emma For the SCU R&D collaboration: ANL, LBNL, SLAC June 27, 2014.
October 4-5, Electron Lens Beam Physics Overview Yun Luo for RHIC e-lens team October 4-5, 2010 Electron Lens.
Undulator parameters choice/wish based on a simplified XFEL cost model Jürgen Pfingstner 29 st of July 2015.
Beam Dynamics and FEL Simulations for FLASH Igor Zagorodnov and Martin Dohlus Beam Dynamics Meeting, DESY.
Optimization of Compact X-ray Free-electron Lasers Sven Reiche May 27 th 2011.
LCLS-II Physics Meeting, May 08, 2013 LCLS-II Undulator Tolerances Heinz-Dieter Nuhn LCLS-II Undulator Physics Manager May 8, 2013.
Max Cornacchia, SLAC LCLS Project Overview BESAC, Feb , 2001 LCLS Project Overview What is the LCLS ? Transition from 3 rd generation light sources.
Collimator wakefields - G.Kurevlev Manchester 1 Collimator wake-fields Wake fields in collimators General information Types of wake potentials.
Kiyoshi Kubo Electron beam in undulators of e+ source - Emittance and orbit angle with quad misalignment and corrections - Effect of beam pipe.
A U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Laboratory Operated by The University of Chicago Argonne National Laboratory Office of Science U.S. Department.
FEL Simulations: Undulator Modeling Sven Reiche Start-end Workshop DESY-Zeuthen 08/20/03.
J. Wu March 06, 2012 ICFA-FLS 2012 Workshop Jefferson Lab, Newport News, VA Tolerances for Seeded Free Electron Lasers FEL and Beam Phys. Dept. (ARD/SLAC),
What did we learn from TTF1 FEL? P. Castro (DESY).
ESLS Workshop Nov 2015 MAX IV 3 GeV Ring Commissioning Pedro F. Tavares & Åke Andersson, on behalf of the whole MAX IV team.
SABER Longitudinal Tracking Studies P. Emma, K. Bane Mar. 1, 2006
Tutorial On Fiducialization Of Accelerator Magnets And Undulators
Correlated Misalignments Studies for LCLS-II SC Linac
For Discussion Possible Beam Dynamics Issues in ILC downstream of Damping Ring LCWS2015 K. Kubo.
Short pulse, low charge LCLS operation
Large Booster and Collider Ring
Magnetic Measurements For The LCLS Undulator System
Undulator Tolerances for LCLS-II using SCUs
SCU Next Phase Meeting July 8, 2014.
Review of Application to SASE-FELs
Phase Adjustments: K vs
G. Marcus, Y. Ding, J. Qiang 02/06/2017
Z. Huang LCLS Lehman Review May 14, 2009
Two-bunch self-seeding for narrow-bandwidth hard x-ray FELs
SASE FEL PULSE DURATION ANALYSIS FROM SPECTRAL CORRELATION FUNCTION
Undulator Line Design Liz Moog, Advanced Photon Source April 24, 2002
Modified Beam Parameter Range
Gain Computation Sven Reiche, UCLA April 24, 2002
Undulator Tuning Status Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLS for Zack Wolf, Yurii Levashov, Achim Weidemann, Seva Kaplounenko, Scott Jansson, Ralph Colon, Dave.
LCLS Undulator System Status and Schedule
Transverse coherence and polarization measurement of 131 nm coherent femtosecond pulses from a seeded FEL J. Schwenke, E. Mansten, F. Lindau, N. Cutic,
Introduction Small-angle approximation
LCLS FEL Parameters Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / SSRL April 23, 2002
Response to Recommendations
Heinz-Dieter Nuhn – LCLS Undulator Group Leader May 14, 2009
LCLS Undulator System Status and Schedule
Achieving Required Peak Spectral Brightness Relative Performance for Four Undulator Technologies Neil Thompson WP5 – 20/03/19.
Undulator Physics Diagnostics / Commissioning Strategy Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / SSRL August 11, 2004 Undulator Overview FEL Parameters Diagnostics and.
Introduction [Documents and Parameters]
Final Break Length Choice AC Conductivity Wakefields
Linac Design Update P. Emma LCLS DOE Review May 11, 2005 LCLS.
Enhanced Self-Amplified Spontaneous Emission
Electron Collider Ring Magnets Preliminary Summary
LCLS Undulator Magnetic Measurements
MEIC New Baseline: Performance and Accelerator R&D
Presentation transcript:

Undulator Physics Issues Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLS July 11, 2007 Modified Wakefield Tolerances for Undulator Vacuum Chamber 1

Vacuum Chamber Update Stainless steel has been disqualified as vacuum chamber material [See talk by Zack Wolf]. Two aluminum designs with oval cross section are presently considered as replacement. (A) SLAC: Clam Shell Aluminum Measured Roughness (rms slope): 25 mrad (B) ANL: Extruded Aluminum Measured Roughness (rms slope): 60 mrad Roughness measurements were performed on prototype chambers. They don’t presently quite make the roughness tolerance requirements of 10 mrad. A third design is being considered as temporary backup solution for lasing at 15 Å (C) Circular Copper Chamber with Roughness Tolerance set to 60 mrad 2

Roughness Tolerance Specifications The factor in front of the roughness wakefield integral is proportional to the product of We use the rms slope to specify rougness tolerances: For a low values of the rms slope, the roughness wakefield amplitudes are reasonably well described by this quantity. 3

Change of total Chamber Wakefield with rms slope The wakefield tolerances are chosen such that the resistive wall wakefield dominates the other wakefield components, including surface roughness and geometric wakefields. The requirement for the rms slope to be smaller than 10 mrad satisfies that condition. Valid for 1 nC bunch The graph shows the sum over all wakefield contributions. 4

Total Wakefield Profiles for Low Charge Bunch Scenario “A” can be corrected by tapering adjustment. Scenarios “B” and “C” will negatively impact lasing at short wavelength. C 5

Total Wakefield Profiles for High Charge Pulse B Scenarios “B” and “C” will cause unacceptably large energy spread. Only small fraction along the bunch can be made to have gain, depending on the taper setting. C 6

Tapering Ranges USEG01 USEG33 +6 mm Undulator Axis +2 mm Each LCLS Undulator is being tuned to a slightly different K value. Canted Pole Undulators can be horizontally repositioned (under remote control). Presently the field quality is being measured and recorded over range of ±6 mm. For a smaller range of ±2 mm tight tolerances on Field Integrals are in place. -2 mm -6 mm Spont. Rad. +Avg. Wake +Gain Boost +Post Sat. 7

LCLS Undulator Module Pole Canting Canting comes from wedged spacers 4.5 mrad cant angle Gap can be adjusted by lateral displacement of wedges 1 mm shift means 4.5 µm in gap, or 8.2 G Beff can be adjusted to desired value 8

Undulator Roll-Away and K Adjustment Function Pole Center Line Vacuum Chamber Neutral; K=3.4881; Dx= 0.0 mm First; K=3.5000; Dx=-4.0 mm Neutral; K=3.4881; Dx= 0.0 mm Neutral; K=3.4881; Dx= 0.0 mm Roll-Away; K=0.0000; Dx=+80.0 mm Horizontal Slide 9

Measured Keff vs x for SN02 Undulator Fields are Measured and Recorded over ±6 mm range. Example: Keff 10

Long Coil Vertical Field Integral Measurements for SN17 Undulator field integrals are measured and recorded over ±6 mm range. Tolerance of 40 µTm and 50 µTm2 are enforced over ±2 mm range but outside tolerance violations are generally small. 11

Tapering Ranges Accommodate Low Charge Bunch USEG01 USEG33 +6 mm Undulator Axis +2 mm Each LCLS Undulator is being tuned to a slightly different K value. Canted Pole Undulators can be horizontally repositioned (under remote control). Presently the field quality is being measured and recorded over range of ±6 mm. For a smaller range of ±2 mm tight tolerances on Field Integrals are in place. -2 mm -6 mm Spont. Rad. +Avg. Wake +Gain Boost +Post Sat. 12

Reduced Tolerances with Low Charge Bunch For Low Charge Bunch, average tapering requirements can be met for reduced tolerances when using extended tuning range. Scenario “A” (Al Clam Shell with 25 mrad roughness slope) is supported by the ±2 mm range for all wavelengths. B A C 13

Reduced Tolerances with High Charge Bunch For High Charge Bunch, average tapering requirements can NOT be met for reduced tolerance scenarios “B” and “C” for all wavelengths. Scenario “A” is supported by the ±6 mm range for all wavelengths. B A C 14

Tapering Scenarios (Overview) Average Core Loss Rates and Taper Requirements at 1.5 Å [Pretaper: -384 keV/m] Low Charge High Charge Tolerance Spont. Rad. Gain Wake Total Full -184 keV/m -117 keV/m -146 keV/m -446 keV/m -79 keV/m -379 keV/m A -178 keV/m -479 keV/m -49 keV/m -350 keV/m B -152 keV/m -453 keV/m -506 keV/m -804 keV/m C -191 keV/m -491 keV/m -580 keV/m -881 keV/m Average Core Loss Rates and Taper Requirements at 15 Å [Pretaper: -122 keV/m] Low Charge High Charge Tolerance Spont. Rad. Gain Wake Total Full -184 keV/m -117 keV/m -146 keV/m -288 keV/m -78 keV/m -221 keV/m A -178 keV/m -321 keV/m -49 keV/m -192 keV/m B -152 keV/m -295 keV/m -506 keV/m -649 keV/m C -191 keV/m -333 keV/m -580 keV/m -723 keV/m 15

Core Energy Spread Increase Core Beam Energy Spread increases at 1.5 Å Low Charge High Charge Tolerance sd,c sd,c/r Full 0.008 % 28 % 0.116 % 365 % A 0.014 % 51 % 0.142 % 447 % B 0.093 % 335 % 0.489 % 1539 % C 0.113 408 % 0.560 % 1763 % GENESIS Simulations see next slides Core Beam Energy Spread Increases at 15 Å Low Charge High Charge Tolerance sd,c sd,c/r Full 0.025 % 25.9 % 0.366 % 330 % A 0.045 % 48 % 0.449 % 405 % B 0.294 % 310 % 1.547 % 1397 % C 0.358 % 378 % 1.772 % 1600 % 16

GENESIS Simulation Results for Low Charge Bunch “C” at 15 Å Intensity Profile 15 Å Avg. Pulse Radiation Power vs. z Radiation Bandwidth vs. z Electron Energy: 4.31 GeV Radiation Wavelength: 15 Å Bunch Charge : 200 pC Using Wake Taper of 230 keV/m Tolerance Scenario: “C” 17 GENESIS Simulations by S. Reiche, UCLA

GENESIS Simulation Results for Low Charge Bunch “B” at 1.5 Å Intensity Profile Avg. Pulse Radiation Power vs. z 1.5 Å Radiation Bandwidth vs. z Electron Energy: 13.64 GeV Radiation Wavelength: 1.5 Å Bunch Charge : 200 pC Using Wake Taper of 227 keV/m Tolerance Scenario: “B" 18 GENESIS Simulations by S. Reiche, UCLA

Summary Problems encountered with the Stainless Steel vacuum chamber design require the consideration of alternatives at reduced roughness tolerances. Three cases have been identified with roughness levels 2.5 to 6 times above the original tolerances. Wakefield calculations and GENESIS FEL simulations show that saturation for the full bunch can be achieved at long wavelengths for the full bunch and at short wavelength for parts of the bunch with appropriate taper selection at the 200 pC bunch charge. Cases “B” and “C” should be considered marginal. They should be avoided for the long run. Case “A” is expected to provide acceptable performance. 19

End of Presentation 20