Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 48 references

The SPARTA project: toward a demonstrator facility for multistage plasma acceleration

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read SPARTA's central claim is that the two obstacles to practical plasma accelerators—coupling many acceleration stages without degrading the beam, and keeping the acceleration stable—have concrete solutions, enabling a conceptual design for…

desk verdict A clear, honest roadmap for the SPARTA project; the entire staging concept rests on a nonlinear plasma lens that does not yet exist, but the paper openly says so and lays out a sensible path to test it. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14493 v1 pith:BSCILNN3 submitted 2025-05-20 physics.acc-ph physics.plasm-ph

C. A. Lindstr{o}m , E. Adli , H. B. Anderson , P. Drobniak , D. Kalvik , F. Peña , K. N. Sjobak This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.acc-phphysics.plasm-ph
keywords plasmawakefieldaccelerationstagingnonlinearlenslocalchromaticitycorrectionself-stabilizationstrong-fieldQEDmultistageaccelerator
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

SPARTA is an R&D project whose central claim is that the two obstacles to practical plasma accelerators—coupling many acceleration stages without degrading the beam, and keeping the acceleration process stable—have concrete solutions. The staging solution is a nonlinear plasma lens, a not-yet-existing beamline element that would focus strongly in both planes while correcting chromaticity (the energy-dependent focusing that smears out beams with large energy spread). The stability solution is self-stabilization: using inter-stage longitudinal dispersion so that energy errors automatically reduce the next stage's accelerating field, plus transverse damping. If these solutions work, the project can produce a conceptual design for a ~50 GeV, ~10-stage, ~100 m facility for strong-field QED experiments—an intermediate application between today's single-stage experiments and a plasma-based collider. The paper is a project overview; the lens development has already begun with prototype experiments, and a start-to-end simulation framework for the facility design is in place.

What carries the argument

The nonlinear plasma lens: a plasma lens whose transverse focusing field is shaped (by an external magnetic dipole field across a discharge capillary) to be sextupole-like, meaning the focusing strength increases linearly with radial offset. This single element combines the strong two-plane focusing of a plasma lens with the chromaticity-correcting function of a sextupole, enabling local chromaticity correction in a compact staging lattice. The other central mechanism is multistage longitudinal self-stabilization: an inter-stage longitudinal dispersion $R_{56}$ converts an energy error into a longitudinal position shift, so that a particle accelerated too much in one stage arrives differently in the next and experiences a weaker (or stronger) field; this passive negative feedback suppresses energy jitter without active controls.

What would settle it

Measure the transverse field profile of the prototype nonlinear plasma lens and the emittance of a beam after focusing: if the field gradient does not increase linearly with radial offset or the focused beam's emittance grows beyond the design tolerance, the staging concept as proposed would be falsified, even though the self-stabilization mechanisms might still hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a proposed staging lattice in which a nonlinear plasma lens—a plasma lens with an integrated sextupole-like transverse field profile—performs both strong two-plane focusing and local chromaticity correction (cancelling the energy-dependent focusing that otherwise degrades large-energy-spread beams) between plasma stages, eliminating the chromaticity-induced emittance growth that has limited previous staging schemes. It further argues that multistage dynamics provide a passive stabilization mechanism: longitudinal phase-space dispersion maps energy errors into position shifts so the next stage automatically compensates, and transverse instabilities can be damped in the same staged manner. On this basis, the paper claims that a medium-scale multistage plasma accelerator—delivering ~50 GeV electron bunches with 0.1–1 nC charge, ~10 mm mrad emittance, and 1–10 Hz repetition rate in about 100 m and 10 stages—can be conceptually designed, and that such a facility would enable strong-field QED experiments beyond today's state of the art.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme depends on a new optical element, the nonlinear plasma lens, that has never been demonstrated; if it cannot focus high-energy, large-energy-spread beams between stages without degrading them, the proposed staging solution loses its foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A working nonlinear plasma lens would make stage-to-stage beam transport compact and chromaticity-free, removing the main obstacle to energy scaling by staging.
  • Self-stabilizing multistage dynamics would reduce reliance on fast active feedback, lowering the operating cost and complexity of a plasma-accelerator facility.
  • The proposed ~50 GeV, ~100 m facility would bring strong-field QED experiments—laser–electron collisions probing fields near the QED critical field—into reach with a machine far smaller than conventional accelerators of comparable energy.
  • A successful conceptual design at this scale would be the missing intermediate experimental step toward a plasma-based linear collider, providing the staging and stability demonstrations a collider would require.
  • The project's start-to-end simulation framework would deliver a costed, design-driven blueprint for a €10–100M facility, specifying tolerances, magnets, vacuum, and diagnostics.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If nonlinear plasma lenses deliver the required sextupole-like fields, the same chromaticity-correcting focusing concept could also serve compact beam-transport lines and final-focus systems outside plasma staging, since the optics principle is generic.
  • The $R_{56}$-based longitudinal self-stabilization could be validated earlier and independently of the plasma lens, because a two-stage experiment using RF-emulated beams (as the paper already contemplates for the staging proof-of-principle) could isolate the energy-feedback mechanism before the lens is ready.
  • The strongest testable prediction is a quantitative one: the prototype lens must exhibit a transverse field whose gradient grows linearly with radial offset, and a beam focused through it must preserve emittance below the ~10 mm mrad target across repeated trials; a field profile that deviates from linear would force a different focusing technology rather than a different stabilization scheme.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents the ERC-funded SPARTA project as a roadmap for solving two central problems in plasma acceleration: staging without beam-quality degradation, and acceleration-process stability. It describes three objectives: (1) developing a nonlinear plasma lens with an integrated sextupole-like field for local chromaticity correction between stages; (2) developing longitudinal and transverse self-stabilization mechanisms, building on prior theoretical work and planned experiments at CLEAR, FACET-II, and FLASHForward; and (3) producing a conceptual design of a ~100 m, ~50 GeV, 1–10 Hz multistage plasma-accelerator facility for strong-field QED experiments. The paper contains no new experimental data, no new derivations, and no end-to-end simulation results; it is a project-status and objective-description paper.

Significance. If the proposed nonlinear plasma lens can be realized with sufficient field quality and stability, it would be a genuinely important advance for plasma-accelerator staging, because it would allow compact, chromaticity-compensating refocusing between stages and is applicable to both laser- and beam-driven schemes. The paper is also valuable for clearly identifying strong-field QED as a near-term application whose modest beam-quality, efficiency, and repetition-rate requirements are well matched to the expected capabilities of multistage plasma accelerators. The manuscript is honest about its status: it explicitly states that the nonlinear plasma lens does not yet exist, that first prototype experiments have begun at CLEAR, and that the demonstrator design is a future deliverable of the ABEL simulation framework. These are strengths: the paper does not overclaim completed results. As a roadmap, it is plausible and should be informative to the accelerator community; however, it provides no quantitative evidence for the central feasibility claims, so its value is as a project plan rather than as a technical demonstration.

major comments (2)
  1. [Objective 1, Fig. 2] The staging lattice is built entirely on a nonlinear plasma lens that 'does not yet exist.' The paper acknowledges this, but to make the proposed solution credible even as a design target, it should state the quantitative requirements on the lens: the required sextupole-to-quadrupole ratio set by the beam energy spread and focal strength, the tolerance on higher-order multipoles (octupole, decapole) over the beam aperture, and the pulse-to-pulse reproducibility needed at 1–10 Hz. Without these numbers, the claim that this lattice can preserve ~10 mm mrad emittance cannot be assessed. This is a load-bearing gap, not a fatal contradiction, because the objective is precisely to develop the element.
  2. [Objective 3, Fig. 3] The target parameters '~50 GeV, 0.1–1 nC, ~10 mm mrad, 1–10 Hz, ~10 plasma stages, ~100 m' are presented as an 'aim' without a supporting scaling argument, parameter table, or preliminary simulation. Since Objective 3 is to deliver a conceptual design 'at a level of detail and credibility sufficient for' a €10–100M investment, the paper should at least provide a table of assumed per-stage energy gain, accelerating gradient, estimated efficiency, stage length, and driver requirements, or explicitly label the numbers as placeholders that the ABEL framework will produce. As written, the reader cannot distinguish a motivated design point from an arbitrary wish-list entry.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: 'TOW ARD' should read 'TOWARD.'
  2. [Fig. 3] The caption and figure contain the garbled string 'γe/hyphen.superior,' which appears to be a rendering artifact; this should be corrected to a proper symbol or removed.
  3. [Objective 3, Fig. 3] The emittance target '~10mmmrad' needs a space: '~10 mm mrad.'
  4. [Objective 2] Reference [42] is cited as 'recently proposed' but is a 2021 preprint; the citation should include the current status (published version or arXiv date) for completeness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a project plan with no derived predictions; self-citations are programmatic references, not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

This paper is a project description and roadmap, not a derivation. It makes no predictions that are fitted to data, and no claimed result is defined in terms of its own conclusion. The staging solution (Objective 1) is explicitly presented as a to-be-developed element: 'the idea is to integrate a sextupole-like field into the plasma lens itself, resulting in a nonlinear plasma lens—a beamline element that does not yet exist.' The cited CLEAR experiments (Refs. [36,37]) are described as ongoing first experiments, not as completed evidence that forces the design. The multistage self-stabilization mechanism (Objective 2) cites the first author's prior proposal (Ref. [42]) and the ABEL framework (Ref. [43]) as tools and ideas to be investigated, not as a closed proof; the paper's own claim is that the project 'will investigate the practical applicability of this mechanism.' The demonstrator parameters (~50 GeV, 0.1-1 nC, ~10 mm mrad, 1-10 Hz, ~10 stages, ~100 m) are stated design aims, not outputs of a derivation. No equation in the paper reduces to an input, and no load-bearing argument rests on a self-citation that is itself unverified; the self-citations are programmatic references to ongoing work. The central risk identified by a skeptical reader—that the nonlinear plasma lens is undemonstrated—is an open engineering question, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted because the paper contains no quantitative derivation or data analysis. The listed axioms are domain assumptions taken from cited literature and from the project's own prior proposals; they are the unproved background that the planned facility design depends on. No new physical entities are introduced; the nonlinear plasma lens is a proposed device, not a postulated new force, particle, or symmetry.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Plasma accelerators can provide high accelerating gradients and preserve beam quality at the level needed for the proposed demonstrator.
    Invoked in the Introduction and Objective 3; supported by cited Refs 11-14 rather than by this paper.
  • domain assumption The nonlinear plasma lens with sextupole-like field can be realized and will focus without introducing unacceptable aberrations.
    Objective 1 states this element does not yet exist; the project's central staging solution depends on its feasibility.
  • domain assumption The longitudinal self-stabilization mechanism based on inter-stage R56 (Ref 42) remains effective under realistic jitters and collective effects.
    Objective 2 plans to test this with ABEL simulations; no experimental confirmation is presented.
  • domain assumption Strong-field QED experiments can be performed by colliding a high-intensity laser with a >10 GeV electron beam, with modest beam quality requirements.
    Introduction cites Refs 27-29; this motivates the chosen demonstrator parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The SPARTA project: toward a demonstrator facility for multistage plasma acceleration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BSCILNN3

@misc{pith2026250514493,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The SPARTA project: toward a demonstrator facility for multistage plasma acceleration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BSCILNN3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14493}
}
read the original abstract

Plasma accelerators promise greatly reduced size and cost for future particle-accelerator facilities. However, several challenges remain to be solved; in particular that of coupling beams between plasma stages (i.e., staging) without beam-quality degradation, and that of ensuring a stable acceleration process. In order to mature the technology, it is also key to identify an application that requires staging and high stability but is not overly challenging in other parameters such as energy efficiency, beam quality and repetition rate. The goal of the ERC-funded project SPARTA is to solve the staging and stability problems of plasma acceleration, and to combine the solutions into a medium-scale multistage plasma-accelerator facility for such an application: experiments in strong-field quantum electrodynamics. Here, we discuss the three main objectives of the SPARTA project: developing a nonlinear plasma lens for staging, developing self-stabilization mechanisms, and providing a conceptual design for a multistage demonstrator facility.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14493 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flow chart describing the context and motivations (yellow boxes), challenges to be solved (red boxes) and proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Staging optics lattice based on nonlinear plasma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic layout of a possible beam-driven multistage plasma accelerator. The drive-beam distribution concept [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Coherent principle of acceleration of charged particles

    V. I. Veksler, “Coherent principle of acceleration of charged particles", in Proc. CERN Symposium on High Energy Ac- celerators and Pion Physics (CERN, 1956), pp. 80–83

    1956

  2. [2]

    Laser electron accelerator

    T. Tajima and J. M. Dawson, “Laser electron accelerator", Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 267 (1979)

    1979

  3. [3]

    Accel- eration of electrons by the interaction of a bunched electron beam with a plasma

    P.Chen,J.M.Dawson,R.W.Huff,andT.Katsouleas,“Accel- eration of electrons by the interaction of a bunched electron beam with a plasma",Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 693 (1985)

    1985

  4. [4]

    A plasma wake field accelerator

    R. D. Ruth, A. W. Chao, P. L. Morton, and P. B. Wilson, “A plasma wake field accelerator",Part. Accel.17, 171 (1985)

    1985

  5. [5]

    EuropeanStrategyforParticlePhysics-Ac- celerator R&D Roadmap

    N.Mounet(ed.),“EuropeanStrategyforParticlePhysics-Ac- celerator R&D Roadmap”, CERN-2022-001 (CERN, 2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Stimulated emission of bremsstrahlung in a periodic magnetic field

    J. M. J. Madey, “Stimulated emission of bremsstrahlung in a periodic magnetic field",J. Appl. Phys.42, 1906 (1971)

    work page 1971

  7. [7]

    X-ray free-electron lasers

    B. W. J. McNeil and N. R. Thompson, “X-ray free-electron lasers”, Nat. Photon.4, 814 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    A. W. Chao and W. Chou (eds.), Reviews of Accelerator Science and Technology, Volume 2: Medical Applications of Accelerators (World Scientific, Singapore, 2009)

    work page 2009

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Physics of laser-driven plasma-based electron accelerators

    E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder and W. Leemans, “Physics of laser-driven plasma-based electron accelerators”,Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1229 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    Beam-drivenplasmawake- field acceleration

    C.A.Lindstrøm, S.Corde etal., “Beam-drivenplasmawake- field acceleration”, preprint at arXiv:2504.05558 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Multi-GeV energy gain in a plasma- wakefield accelerator

    M. J. Hoganet al., “Multi-GeV energy gain in a plasma- wakefield accelerator",Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 054802 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    GeVelectronbeamsfromacentimetre- scale accelerator

    W.P.Leemans etal.,“GeVelectronbeamsfromacentimetre- scale accelerator",Nat. Phys.2, 696 (2006)

    2006

  5. [13]

    Energy-spread preservation and high efficiency in a plasma-wakefield accelerator

    C. A. Lindstrømet al., “Energy-spread preservation and high efficiency in a plasma-wakefield accelerator”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 014801 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Emittance preservation in a plasma- wakefield accelerator

    C. A. Lindstrømet al., “Emittance preservation in a plasma- wakefield accelerator”,Nat. Commun.15, 6097 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    High-efficiency acceleration of an electron beam in a plasma wakefield accelerator

    M. Litoset al., “High-efficiency acceleration of an electron beam in a plasma wakefield accelerator",Nature 515, 92 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Energydepletionandre-accelerationofdriver electrons in a plasma-wakefield accelerator

    F.Peña etal.,“Energydepletionandre-accelerationofdriver electrons in a plasma-wakefield accelerator",Phys. Rev. Re- search 6, 043090 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Multistage coupling of independent laser- plasma accelerators

    S. Steinkeet al., “Multistage coupling of independent laser- plasma accelerators”,Nature 530, 190 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Stagingofplasma-wakefieldaccelerators

    C.A.Lindstrøm,“Stagingofplasma-wakefieldaccelerators”, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams24, 014801 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Electron-hose instability in the ion- focused regime

    D. H. Whittumet al., “Electron-hose instability in the ion- focused regime”,Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 991 (1991)

    1991

  12. [20]

    Efficiency versus instability in plasma accelerators

    V. Lebedev, A. Burov and S. Nagaitsev, “Efficiency versus instability in plasma accelerators”,Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 20, 121301 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Positron acceleration in plasma wakefields

    G. J. Caoet al., “Positron acceleration in plasma wakefields", Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams27, 034801 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Recovery time of a plasma-wakefield ac- celerator

    R. D’Arcyet al., “Recovery time of a plasma-wakefield ac- celerator”, Nature 603, 58 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    AConceptofPlasmaWakeFieldAcceleration Linear Collider (PWFA-LC)

    A.Seryi etal.,“AConceptofPlasmaWakeFieldAcceleration Linear Collider (PWFA-LC)", inProc. PAC’09, Vancouver, Canada, May 2009, paper WE6PFP081, pp. 2688–2690

    2009

  16. [24]

    A hybrid, asym- metric, linear Higgs factory based on plasma-wakefield and radio-frequency acceleration

    B. Foster, R. D’Arcy and C. A. Lindstrøm, “A hybrid, asym- metric, linear Higgs factory based on plasma-wakefield and radio-frequency acceleration”, New J. Phys. 25, 093037 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Free-electron lasing at 27 nanometres based on a laser wakefield accelerator

    W. Wanget al., “Free-electron lasing at 27 nanometres based on a laser wakefield accelerator",Nature 595, 516 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Free-electron lasing with compact beam- driven plasma wakefield accelerator

    R. Pompiliet al., “Free-electron lasing with compact beam- driven plasma wakefield accelerator", Nature 605, 659 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Observation of nonlinear effects in Compton scattering

    C. Bulaet al., “Observation of nonlinear effects in Compton scattering", Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 3116 (1996)

    1996

  20. [28]

    Experimental evidence of radiation reaction in the collision of a high-intensity laser pulse with a laser- wakefieldacceleratedelectronbeam

    J. Coleet al., “Experimental evidence of radiation reaction in the collision of a high-intensity laser pulse with a laser- wakefieldacceleratedelectronbeam", Phys.Rev.X 8,011020 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    On gauge invariance and vacuum polariza- tion

    J. Schwinger, “On gauge invariance and vacuum polariza- tion",Phys. Rev.82, 664 (1951)

    1951

  22. [30]

    Staging of plasma accelerators for realizing timely applications

    European Commission, “Staging of plasma accelerators for realizing timely applications", 2023. https://doi.org/10.3030/101116161

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    A possible final focusing mechanism for linear colliders

    P. Chen, “A possible final focusing mechanism for linear colliders”,Part. Accel.20, 171 (1987)

    1987

  24. [32]

    Demonstrationofrelativisticelectronbeam focusing by a laser-plasma lens

    C.Thaury etal.,“Demonstrationofrelativisticelectronbeam focusing by a laser-plasma lens”,Nat. Commun. 6, 6860 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Active plasma lensing for relativistic laser-plasma-accelerated electron beams

    J. van Tilborget al., “Active plasma lensing for relativistic laser-plasma-accelerated electron beams”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 184802 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Emittance preservation in an aberration-free active plasma lens

    C. A. Lindstrøm et al., “Emittance preservation in an aberration-free active plasma lens”,Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 194801 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Novelfinalfocusdesignforfuture linear colliders

    P.RaimondiandA.Seryi,“Novelfinalfocusdesignforfuture linear colliders”,Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 3779 (2001)

    2001

  28. [36]

    Development of a nonlinear plasma lens forachromaticbeamtransport

    P. Drobniaket al., “Development of a nonlinear plasma lens forachromaticbeamtransport", Nucl.Instrum.MethodsPhys. Res. A1072, 170223 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Preliminary results from the CLEAR nonlinear plasma lens experiment

    P. Drobniaket al., “Preliminary results from the CLEAR nonlinear plasma lens experiment", presented at the 16th International Particle Accelerator Conf. (IPAC’25), Taipei, Taiwan, June 2025 paper MOPS027, this conference

    2025

  30. [38]

    The CLEAR user facility at CERN

    D. Gambaet al., “The CLEAR user facility at CERN",Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A909, 480 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Development of an achromatic spectrometer for a laser-wakefield-accelerator experiment

    F. Peñaet al., “Development of an achromatic spectrometer for a laser-wakefield-accelerator experiment", presented at the 16th International Particle Accelerator Conf. (IPAC’25), Taipei, Taiwan, June 2025 paper TUPM096, this conference

    2025

  32. [40]

    Decodingsourcesofenergyvariabilityin a laser-plasma accelerator

    A.R.Maier etal.,“Decodingsourcesofenergyvariabilityin a laser-plasma accelerator",Phys. Rev. X10, 031039 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Active energy compression of a laser- plasma electron beam

    P. Winkleret al., “Active energy compression of a laser- plasma electron beam",Nature 640, 907 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Self-correctinglongitudinalphasespacein a multistage plasma accelerator

    C.A.Lindstrøm,“Self-correctinglongitudinalphasespacein a multistage plasma accelerator", arXiv:2104.14460 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    ABEL: The adaptable beginning-to-end linac simulation framework

    J. B. B. Chenet al., “ABEL: The adaptable beginning-to-end linac simulation framework", presented at the 16th Interna- tional Particle Accelerator Conf. (IPAC’25), Taipei, Taiwan, June 2025 paper TUPS012, this conference

    2025

  36. [44]

    SuppressionofBeamHosinginPlasma Accelerators with Ion Motion

    T.J.Mehrling etal.,“SuppressionofBeamHosinginPlasma Accelerators with Ion Motion",Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 264802 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    The E302 instability-versus-efficiency experiment at FACET-II

    O. G. Finnerudet al., “The E302 instability-versus-efficiency experiment at FACET-II", arXiv:2402.10325 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Ion-motion simulations of a plasma- wakefield experiment at FLASHForward

    D. Kalvik et al., “Ion-motion simulations of a plasma- wakefield experiment at FLASHForward", presented at the 16th International Particle Accelerator Conf. (IPAC’25), Taipei, Taiwan, June 2025 paper TUPS013, this conference

    2025

  39. [47]

    FACET-II facility for advanced acceler- ator experimental tests

    V. Yakimenkoet al., “FACET-II facility for advanced acceler- ator experimental tests",Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams22, 101301 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    FLASHForward: plasma wakefield ac- celerator science for high-average-power applications

    R. D’Arcyet al., “FLASHForward: plasma wakefield ac- celerator science for high-average-power applications",Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A.377, 20180392 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.