04.08.2013 Views

STUDIES OF ENERGY RECOVERY LINACS AT ... - CASA

STUDIES OF ENERGY RECOVERY LINACS AT ... - CASA

STUDIES OF ENERGY RECOVERY LINACS AT ... - CASA

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

FIG. 4.3: A plot of the threshold current versus HOM frequency as described by<br />

Eq. (4.21). For positive threshold currents the formula is valid while for negative values,<br />

numerical methods must be used to determine the value of the threshold.<br />

4.2.1 Discussion<br />

Equation (4.21) is a good approximation only under the condition that the<br />

quantity M ∗ sin(ωTr) is less than zero. If M ∗ sin(ωTr) is positive, Eq. (4.21) yields<br />

a negative threshold current which implies absolute beam stability. A plot of the<br />

threshold current as a function of HOM frequency is given in Fig. 4.3 where the<br />

regions of instability (where the model is valid) and stability (where the model fails)<br />

are clearly distinguished. However, the beam can still go unstable at extremely high<br />

values of the beam current even if M ∗ sin(ωTr) > 0 [67]. This discrepancy is caused<br />

by the assumption that the voltage induced by the beam on the second pass is a<br />

small perturbation to the HOM voltage, which fails for beams with a large charge<br />

per bunch. The dependence of the threshold for positive values of M ∗ sin(ωTr) was<br />

predicted analytically and observed in simulations by others [14, 68, 69, 65].<br />

89

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!