Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ment and guiding, etc. For thermal electron emission the 1.8 E +1 2
LaB6 cathode is heated up to over 1300 C by a 0.1-
(a) g ap = 1.5 cm
T c = 1 33 0 o C
1.5 E +1 2
graphite heater, and a voltage pulse of about 100 V is ap- P = 2 m T o rr
V d = 1 00 V
plied between the cathode and anode for several ms. As a
D ensity (cm - 3 )
1 .2E + 1 2
result, a discharge plasma is generated and the plasma is
guided to flow towards the beam-plasma interaction cham- 9.0 E +1 1
0.0E +0
Convectron Gauge Ion Gauge -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Electron Beam D istance (cm )
Solenoid 1
Solenoid 2 Solenoid 3 1 .8E + 1 2
(b ) g a p = 1 cm
T c = 1 3 3 0o C
1 .5E + 1 2 P = 2 m T o rr
LaB6 Cathode Vd = 110 V
)
Plasma Flow 1 .2E + 1 2
-3
Heater LP
D ensity (cm
Ar Gas Anode CR
YAG 9 .0E + 1 1
6 .0E + 1 1
TMP
3 .0E + 1 1
Butterfly Valve
(150 l/s) Sliding Door
0 .0 E + 0
LP : Langmuir probe
CR : Cherenkov radiator -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
YAG : YAG crystal D istance (cm )
3709
Proceedings of the 1999 Particle Accelerator Conference, New York, 1999
0 .8
cus is significantly deformed from the initial profile near
the cathode. This is related with the highly dynamical pro-
cess of an ion channel formation in the plasma. To reduce
the nonlinear focusing effect the plasma and beam densities
0 .4
can be increased. In this case, the plasma oscillation period
is smaller and the ion channel will be formed in a shorter
time so that the tail part of the beam will experience a less
0 .0
nonlinear focusing. Then the density profile deformation
will be mitigated.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
A x ial D istan ce (cm )
4 PRESENT STATUS AND
CONCLUSIONS
Figure 3: Electron beam trajectory. The solid line shows Since the test results of the plasma source were reported
the plasma density profile with the parameters in Table 1. previously [3], a couple of problems in the plasma source
have been improved. For example, some parts of the
plasma source were too hot during operation in the past,
is formed and the tail part of the beam is focused by the ion but this problem was solved by adding an additional cool-
channel. This phenomenon is observed in Fig. 3. As shown ing structure. In addition, the solenoidal magnetic field for
in the figure, the head part of the beam is not focused and plasma confinement deflects electron beams transversely
it continues to expand due to an emittance effect, while the and this could be a problem for Cherenkov radiator-streak
tail part of the beam is tightly focused after about 2=!p and camera measurements. Hence, new solenoids with a
then it expands radially. Its focal length is observed to be smaller diameter and iron shielding were designed and the
about 9 cm, which is in good agreement with the impulse old solenoids were replaced by the new ones to minimize
focusing approximation [5]. the beam deflection. Basically the plasma source is ready
for experiments. Hence, after the ongoing measurements
of basic beam parameters, the plasma source will be as-
sembled with the Neptune beamline for the plasma lens ex-
500 periment.
450
Current Density (A/mm 2 )
5 REFERENCES
400 [1] S. Aderson et al., “Commissioning of the Neptune Photoin-
at focus (τ=3/ω ) jector”, these proceedings.
350 p
[2] J.B. Rosenzweig et al., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A 410, 437
300 (1998).
[3] H. Suk et al., “Test Results of the Plasma Source for Under-
250
dense Plasma Lens Experiments at the UCLA Neptune lab-
at focus ( τ=2/ω )
p oratory”, to appear in Advanced Accelerator Concepts (AIP,
200
New Nork, 1998).
150 [4] P. Davis, Plasma Lenses for Relativistic Electron Beams,
Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Electrical Engineering,
100 near cathode (τ=2/ω p) UCLA (1996).
50
[5] J.J. Su et al., Phys. Rev. A 41, 3321 (1990).
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Radius (mm)
3710