Ming Fang1、2, Wentao Wang1、*, Zhijun Zhang1, Jiansheng Liu1、3, Changhai Yu1, Rong Qi1, Zhiyong Qin1, Jiaqi Liu1, Ke Feng1, Ying Wu1, Cheng Wang1, Tao Liu4, Dong Wang4, Yi Xu1, Fenxiang Wu1, Yuxin Leng1, Ruxin Li1、3、5, and Zhizhan Xu1、5
Author Affiliations
1Shanghai Institute of Optics and Fine Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800, China2University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China3Collaborative Innovation Center of IFSA (CICIFSA), Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China4Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800, China5School of Physical Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai 200031, Chinashow less
DOI: 10.3788/COL201816.040201
Cite this Article
Set citation alerts
Ming Fang, Wentao Wang, Zhijun Zhang, Jiansheng Liu, Changhai Yu, Rong Qi, Zhiyong Qin, Jiaqi Liu, Ke Feng, Ying Wu, Cheng Wang, Tao Liu, Dong Wang, Yi Xu, Fenxiang Wu, Yuxin Leng, Ruxin Li, Zhizhan Xu. Long-distance characterization of high-quality laser-wakefield-accelerated electron beams[J]. Chinese Optics Letters, 2018, 16(4): 040201
Copy Citation Text
show less
Fig. 1. Transverse normalized emittance evolution along a drift of 1 m downstream of the LWFA source simulated by PIC code (red solid line) and ASTRA code (blue solid line), as well as the theoretical normalized emittance according to Eq. (3) (black dotted line). The simulated trace-space emittance ϵ multiplied by the average relativistic energy factor 〈γB〉 is shown for comparison (green solid line).
Fig. 2. Layout of the experimental setup for the LWFA-driven beam transport line. Two-stage gas jets are magnified in the dashed box. (a) Typical focused beam profile obtained on the removable phosphor screen (S2) with a peak central energy of 500 MeV. (b) Typical energy spectrum of one e beam obtained on S1 before manipulation with main peak central energy, rms relative energy spread, and rms divergence of 515 MeV, 1.1%, and 0.24 mrad, respectively. (c) Typical energy spectrum of one e beam obtained on S3 after manipulation with main peak central energy, rms relative energy spread, and rms divergence of 517 MeV, 0.9%, and 0.06 mrad, respectively.
Fig. 3. Peak energy (blue) and energy spread (red) measured on S1 against accelerating length. The error bars represent the statistical discrepancy in each direction.
Fig. 4. Raw beam patterns recorded on S2 with different e-beam energies and the corresponding electron spectra on S1. (a) Typical 500 MeV beam pattern without manipulation after 10.3 m free-vacuum drift. (b)–(f) Manipulated beam patterns after 10.3 m with mean peak energies of 250, 340, 380, 470, and 515 MeV, respectively. The EMQ parameters are established for 500 MeV e beams.
Fig. 5. Tracking simulations of the beam line for experimental beams. (a) Evolution of the horizontal (upper lines) and vertical (lower lines) beam sizes along the longitudinal propagation with the corresponding central energies for beams shown in Figs. 4(b)–4(f). The shading bands represent the energy spreads. The lattices of the quadrupoles are represented by the blue boxes. (b), (c) Simulated transverse divergence and size at the end of the line as a function of electron energy. The colored shading bands denote the beam energy with corresponding spreads in Figs. 4(b)–4(f).
Fig. 6. False color images observed on S2. (a) Sum of 29 consecutive 500 MeV e-beam profiles and the central positions of each shot (black circles) in free vacuum. (b) Sum of 24 consecutive 500 MeV e beams and the central positions (red circles) with the system of focusing lenses.
Parameter | Symbol | Value (LWFA Exit) | Value (Beamline Entrance) | Unit |
---|
Average energy | | 500 | 500 | MeV | Normalized emittance | | 0.14 | 1.3 | | Trace-space emittance | | 0.14 | 1.0 | | Transverse rms size | | 0.7 | 284 | μm | rms beam length | | 1.8 | 2.26 | μm |
|
Table 1. Parameters of the Beam (PIC Simulations)