220 likes | 372 Views
Space Charge for the ERLP Injection Line. Bruno Muratori ASTeC Daresbury Laboratory. Energy Recovery Linac Prototype. Emittance Growth in Injector Line due to Space Charge. ASTRA - used for Gun to Booster (C Gerth & F Hannon) How to treat dipoles in Injector line ?
E N D
Space Charge for the ERLP Injection Line Bruno Muratori ASTeC Daresbury Laboratory
Emittance Growth in Injector Line due to Space Charge • ASTRA - used for Gun to Booster (C Gerth & F Hannon) • How to treat dipoles in Injector line ? • Analytical approach (N Vinokurov) • GPT (General Particle Tracer) • TRACE-3D (Linear Space Charge only)
Elliptical beam with charge density Electric field Transverse motion (round beam) paraxial approximation, laminar flow ASTRA & Drifts - Analytical Approach
ASTRA & Drifts - Analytical Approach • On boundary, , • With external focusing • Envelope for KV distribution (only KV ? – FIND OUT !) • Therefore laminar flow given by
ASTRA & Drifts - Analytical Approach • Horizontal focusing given by (equivalent for vertical) • Sigma matrix transformation • New emittance • Gaussian bunch
Results & Comparisons for ASTRA & Drifts • Vinokurov’s argument goes here (when I can find it)
CHECK THAT ENVELOPE EQUATIONS (AS QUOTED IN SPACE CHARGE PAPER) ARE *ONLY* TRUE FOR STANDARD KV DISTRIBUTION – don’t think so, but … • CHECK THAT THE STATEMENT MADE BY VINOKUROV IN E-MAIL IS UNDERSTOOD (RE: THE REALM OF VALIDITY OF FORMULA) – ESPECIALLY GIVEN WE HAVE EXAMPLES ABOVE AND BELOW THIS LIMIT …
ASTRA/GPT & Injector line (TL2) • Try to ignore dispersion effects • Replace dipoles with quadrupoles • Make sure resulting Twiss parameters almost identical • Look at emittance growth using both ASTRA/GPT for Gaussian parameters • Validity of analytical formula with quadrupoles ?
ASTRA/GPT & Quadrupoles for TL2 – Short model • ASTRA distribution from gun and booster (CG & FH) • Emittance outside transverse planes
GPT • Includes bends • All results so far agree • Different algorithms also agree • Emittance increase appears to be less than analytical estimate • Dispersion may be left out for a rough estimate
TRACE-3D • Include z component • Update continuously (no averaging) • Take into account longitudinal dispersion • Match R16 (dispersion) to zero • Match R26(angular dispersion) to zero • Match R15 (bunch spatial width) to zero • Match R25 (bunch angular spread) to zero • First two only done
Conclusions • Good agreement between ASTRA and GPT without dipoles • Good agreement between ASTRA/GPT and analytical result for drifts • Can analytical estimate be used as an upper bound ? • Try to take into account space charge by rematching at several stages in injector line. However, this cannot take into account transverse & longitudinal coupling • Start to end simulations only real answer to see if bunch is acceptable for lasing at FEL