COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT WAVELENGTH TUNING SCHEMES IN A SEEDED HIGH-GAIN FEL.

摘要

In the following text we analyze and compare results of the two publications ([1], [2]), dedicated to development of the tunable high-gain Free Electron laser (FEL), seeded by an external source. As a conclusion we summarize similarities and differences between these concepts. This note is initiated by the polemics on the similarity of two different schemes of the wavelength tuning in a seeded high-gain FEL. Below we will be calling the scheme, presented by S. Biedron, S, Milton and H. Freund in Nuclear Instruments and Methods of 2001 ([1]), as the first (1st) scheme. The scheme that we developed and presented in the BNL preprint ([2]) will be called as the second (2nd) scheme. The following analysis provides important information on similarities and differences between both techniques. We start by considering the first approach. As we understand, the goal of the Modular Approach is to make X-ray FEL design more flexible [1]. Usual linac-based FELs begin from a long linac with bunch compressor(s) followed by an FEL magnetic system. The essence of the Modular Approach is to break a machine into modules and then recombine these modules in a more efficient way (from the point of view of monetary and/or time constraints). The chapter 3.5 of [1] presents some basic example of Modular Approach. We have studied the scheme, discussed in [1] and illustrated in Fig. 2. Even though very few details of the scheme were presented, it was still sufficient to obtain a complete qualitative picture. Let us begin with the usual phase space of the microbunched beam, which enters a radiator in a prebunched FEL (Fig. 1). The sharp spike (in blue) represents the longitudinal density bunching, which will be the main subject of interest in this discussion. The key principle of a seeded high-gain FEL optimization is to establish this kind of the electron beam phase space at the entrance of the radiator.