2. Aperture Considerations in the FEL Upgrade Accepted design process –generate design  known –set aperture = N  + W N typically 4 to 6 W is “beam handling allowance” example: IR Demo has A = 6  + 4 cm –“Other restrictions may apply” constraints imposed by FEL - optical mode size Here, programmatic considerations force deviation from accepted practice  risk escalates Can reduce risk by using all available information –previous design studies –experience with IR Demo

3. What Do We Know ? No design  unknown Injector not quantitatively understood  N 135 pC unknown  unknown FEL optical mode larger  3” aperture needed unless we can compress e - beam transport

4.  N 135 pC >  N 60 pC  upgrade >  demo –larger machine  larger  and/or more quads more quads undesirable –higher cost –increased chromatic aberration (in turn a limit on larger required momentum acceptance) 1st iteration linac optics (actually, 2nd - 1st was UV Demo design study) has larger beam envelopes –  ’s  “same” in modules  2” may be okay for modules provided emittance does not increase too much –  ’s  2 x larger in warm regions »triplet focussing needed to handle longer linac, higher RF focussing from increased module gradient  for same emittance, need bigger aperture What Can We Reasonably Surmise ?

5. recirculatorrecirculator

6.  upgrade >  demo with  upgrade geometric >  demo geometric  larger spots  upgrade geometric >  demo geometric with  upgrade ~  demo  larger spots  N 135 pC >  N 60 pC likely,  upgrade >  demo certain Injector setup required for high FEL gain (tapered wiggler tests) limited to 1.5 mA by BLM hits  2” aperture inadequate even at 60 pC when high gain configuration required? Geometric Emittance Comparison to Demo accelerate energy recover 150 MeV 100 MeV 50 MeV 10 MeV 10 MeV 50 MeV 100 MeV 150 MeV

7. Conclusion #1 Though 2” possibly (probably?) adequate in modules, peak  ’s in upgrade are in warm regions and will drive increase in aperture there Recommendation(s) #1 Make effort to understand injector quantitatively - and run 5 mA CW at 135 pC –helps define if 2” injector chamber allows reliable operation –characterized normalized emittance at elevated charge 3” warm region in linac

8. Linac-to-FEL Transport at 100-200 MeV It is possible  geometric upgrade <  geometric demo in the module to FEL transport even with space-charge driven degradation (higher energy) –   upgrade >  demo is washed out in spot size in full energy transport –note that at same energy (mid linac in upgrade, end of linac in demo) spot sizes are larger in upgrade –at low end of energy range (~100 MeV) spots may be same or larger in upgrade due to increased normalized emittance and larger beam envelopes

9. Conclusion #2 2” tube may be adequate for full energy beam from end of linac to start of FEL insertion Recommendation(s) #2 100-200 MeV beam 10 MeV beam start 2” to wiggler end 2” optical cavity chicane

10. Component Reuse Larger aperture requirements limit component reuse to regions such as linac-to-FEL transport Diagnostics reusable without modification QB quads probably reusable without modification –48 MeV IR Demo QB maximum current ~2 A –QBs spec’d to 10 A with LCW  can get to ~200 MeV with 20% headroom for matching Correctors may prove useful under similar analysis

11. FEL Insertion Region Optical mode significantly larger than in IR Demo: – either use 3” aperture (including dipoles) – or restrict matching regions to ~ 5 m length Current “existence proof” uses ~10 m match –manages aberrations at  5% momentum offsets by adjusting phase advances amongst telescopes/arc components causes destructive interference of chromatic effects –  ~  ds/  if L reduced,  must reduce good for small apertures, but,  smaller  quads stronger stronger quads  aberrations larger –higher order chromatics ~quadratic in quad strength,  halving lengths doubles quads, quadruples aberrations

12. 10 m match “meets spec”  5 m match “4 x out of spec” - go with 3” Recommendation(s) #3 FEL insertion region: –basic optimization for matching telescope length must balance keeping  small - for good performance and acceptance while keeping L large - to limit quad strength –  ~10 m match in this machine Conclusion #3 wiggler end 2” optical cavity chicane 3”

13. Choose magnet families to keep construction simple –fringe models developed for spectrometer magnets; 3” is not “large” so predictive capability likely okay –match magnet gaps in “similar” families –  -bends probably tolerate 2” because , (and  ) “smaller” –power requirements dominated by  -bends (180 o out of 300 o bending per end loop, so draw most of power) –IR Demo successful matching magnets within and across families; should anticipate similar results in upgrade

14. To avoid undue risk must make FEL insertion 3” “Little” additional cost in making all reverse bends 3” moderate additional DC power (most in  -bends) no overhead in “lost” magnets –no dipoles “lost” as none upgrade –need new trim quads, 6-poles, 8-poles due to horizontal aperture increase necessary to accommodate 10%  p/p significant risk reduction, especially for lower energy operation at higher space charge (can tolerate ~2x larger emittance) Conclusion(s) #4

15.  upgrade ~2 or 3 x  demo at reinjection  N upgrade >  N demo (space charge)  geo. upgrade ~ 1/2 to 1/3  geo. demo (adiabatic damping)  it will not get better How good is it now? Cavity 8 tunes a fair bit (  losses) ILM0F062 hits have been limitation ILM0F06 hits are a limit when running injector for high wiggler gain Injection/Reinjection Region - 2” or 3”?

16. 3” prudent risk reduction at modest incremental cost new injection/extraction dipoles needed to increase available dynamic range of injection/final energy –“small” magnets (~DU/DV)  minor power impact QJ quads/associated correctors support 3” need additional quads for recirculator –not enough QBs to populate reinjection region –at very least, need to re-coil some QGs (~4 for linac to FEL transport, this region would require an additional 6 or 7) –could build an additional half-dozen 3” quads Conclusion #5