Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Realizing A Hard X-Ray Storage Ring Free Electron Laser Oscillator at the APS-U

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a hard X-ray storage-ring free-electron laser oscillator can be realized in a standard 5 m straight section, with about 8% gain at 8.05 keV, about 6% at 10 keV using a transverse-gradient undulator, and more than 5%…

desk verdict A plausible new design result for a hard X-ray SRFELO in a standard APS-U straight, but the gain-over-loss margin is asserted, not shown, and the 5 keV case needs a real loss budget before I'd bet on it. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10419 v1 pith:OYBEQICR submitted 2026-08-11 physics.acc-ph

Emmanuel Aneke , Kent Wootton , Ryan Lindberg , Chris Jacobsen This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.acc-ph PACS 41.60.Cr29.20.db
keywords storageringfree-electronlaseroscillatorhardX-raytransversegradientundulatorBraggcrystalcavityRenierisaturationlimitfourth-generationcoherentsourceFELsimulation
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

This paper argues that a free-electron laser oscillator producing hard X-rays at 5–10 keV can be realized in an ordinary 5-meter straight section of a fourth-generation storage ring, without a dedicated bypass line or a multi-decameter undulator. Self-consistent simulations of repeated passes report single-pass gains of about 8% at 8.05 keV and about 6% at 10 keV using a transverse-gradient undulator, and more than 5% at 5 keV using a simple planar undulator. These gains are meant to exceed the round-trip losses of a crystal-based X-ray cavity. The simulated oscillator reaches a stable, approximately steady-state output consistent with the Renieri saturation limit, with meV spectral bandwidth and an average brightness near $10^{26}$ photons per second per square millimeter per milliradian squared per 0.1% bandwidth at 5 keV. If the simulations are right, the recipe gives existing storage rings a practical route to high-repetition-rate, narrow-band coherent hard X-rays without new accelerator construction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the transverse gradient undulator (TGU), an undulator whose magnetic field gradient makes the deflection parameter vary across the transverse direction; combined with vertical dispersion, the gradient cancels the spread in resonant wavelength caused by the stored beam's energy spread. Around it, the argument is carried by a self-consistent multipass simulation loop that couples single-pass FEL amplification, six-dimensional transport of the electron bunch around the ring, and a Bragg-crystal cavity model with complex reflectivity and a Fourier-space phase-flattening correction that mimics a few-micron cavity detuning. The stability of the saturated state is governed by the Renieri limit, which bounds the FEL energy per pass in terms of the ring's synchrotron energy loss per turn and the number of undulator periods.

What would settle it

Measure the round-trip loss of a diamond Bragg-crystal cavity at 5, 8.05, and 10 keV, including compound refractive lens transmission, crystal absorption, alignment errors, and thermal distortion, and compare it with the simulated gains (more than 5% at 5 keV, about 8% at 8.05 keV, about 6% at 10 keV); if the loss exceeds the gain, the oscillator cannot reach threshold. A second check is to measure single-pass gain at 5 keV with the ring's actual emittance and energy spread and compare it with the 5% threshold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that the combination of a near-diffraction-limited electron beam, a roughly 200-period undulator in a 5 m straight, and a Bragg-crystal optical cavity with a loss budget near or below 5% is sufficient for steady-state lasing at multi-keV photon energies. At 5 keV the planar undulator alone gives more than 5% single-pass gain because the FEL bandwidth is comparable to the stored-beam energy spread; at 8.05 and 10 keV a transverse-gradient undulator with matched vertical dispersion restores the resonance condition across the energy spread and provides about 8% and 6% gain. The time-dependent simulations show the intracavity power rising over about 25,000 passes to an equilibrium at the Renieri limit, with a single-spike spectrum of about 1.5 meV rms at 5 keV. The paper presents this as a practical pathway because the insertion devices are within demonstrated technology and the cavity relies on low-loss hard-X-ray Bragg reflectors that have already been operated in a cavity.

Load-bearing premise

The whole design assumes that a fixed single-pass gain of roughly 5–8% is enough to beat the real round-trip loss of the crystal cavity, including crystal absorption, CRL scattering, alignment errors, and thermal distortion, and that the cavity model's phase-flattening approximation does not hide frequency-dependent losses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An oscillator could be installed in a standard 5 m insertion-device straight, removing the need for a bypass line or an undulator longer than 20 m.
  • At 5 keV the predicted average brightness is about four orders of magnitude above a standard undulator beamline on the same ring, and above the quoted average brightness of a high-energy linac-based X-ray FEL.
  • The narrow crystal bandwidth suppresses the sideband and trapped-particle instabilities, so the output is predicted to be steady rather than spiked.
  • Tuning from 8.05 to 10 keV can be done with one TGU by changing the ring's vertical dispersion rather than the magnet gradient, at the cost of larger vertical beam size and some gain loss.
  • With a 48-bunch fill and a cavity length matched to the bunch spacing, each stored pulse meets a fresh bunch every turn, so the source operates at the ring's repetition rate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the real cavity loss is tighter than the assumed 5% threshold, the same design would need a lower-loss cavity or a longer undulator; this is testable by building an end-to-end cavity model that keeps the crystal phase response and adds CRL absorption and alignment errors.
  • The same TGU-plus-dispersion trick should transfer to other fourth-generation rings with comparable emittance and energy spread, so the proposal is not obviously tied to one machine.
  • Because the simulated steady-state spectrum is a single roughly 1.5 meV spike, the oscillator could serve as a seed for harmonic up-conversion to higher photon energies; the paper mentions seeding applications but does not simulate that stage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that a hard X-ray storage-ring free-electron laser oscillator (SRFELO) could operate in a standard 5 m straight section of the APS-U storage ring. Three configurations are studied: a 5 keV planar undulator, and transverse-gradient undulators (TGUs) at 8.05 keV and 10 keV. The authors report single-pass gains of about 8% and 6% for the two TGU cases and a marginal (>5%) gain for the planar case, together with self-consistent multi-pass simulations using FEL1X and a Genesis1.3/ELEGANT wrapper. They further claim steady-state output consistent with the Renieri saturation limit, meV spectral bandwidth, and an average brightness near 10^26 photons/(s mm^2 mrad^2 0.1% BW) at 5 keV, and conclude that such an oscillator is feasible with nominal APS-U parameters and standard x-ray cavity optics.

Significance. If the central claim is substantiated, the result would be significant: a compact hard X-ray oscillator in an existing fourth-generation storage ring, with repetition-rate and bandwidth advantages over linac-based XFELO concepts. The manuscript has genuine strengths: it uses two independent FEL codes with time-dependent multi-pass tracking, it specifies concrete accelerator and undulator parameters, it appeals to demonstrated insertion-device technologies, and it makes the falsifiable prediction of steady-state lasing with a specific equilibrium power. However, the significance is conditional on resolving several load-bearing issues: the cavity loss threshold is asserted rather than derived, the quoted gain margins are thin, the TGU parameters do not obviously satisfy the stated cancellation condition, the Renieri-limit check is numerically ambiguous, and the two codes disagree by up to a factor of 2.2 in equilibrium power.

major comments (5)
  1. [End Matter, "Bragg-crystal Optics Model"] The 5% single-pass gain threshold is asserted rather than derived. The text says the FEL interaction must provide single-pass gain "explicitly exceeding ~5%" and that this guided the outcoupling threshold, but no loss budget is given for diamond-crystal absorption, CRL transmission and scattering, outcoupling fraction, or alignment and thermal tolerances. Since the quoted margins at 10 keV (~6%) and 5 keV (">5%") are at most one percentage point, the feasibility claim rests on a gain-over-loss margin that is never quantified. Please derive the loss threshold from the optical elements, tabulate the individual loss contributions, and report the actual single-pass gains and their margins. In addition, the "phase-flattening" step removes only the linear group delay of the Bragg reflectors; it cannot remove dispersive phase curvature from dynamical diffraction, so the modeled cavity may be more coherent than the physical one. Please demonstrate that the residual nonlinear phase is negligible at the operating bandwidth.
  2. [Table III and "Results"] The claimed single-pass gains are not shown in the body of the paper, and the reported equilibrium powers disagree between the two codes. Table III gives a 5 keV equilibrium power of 0.36 MW for FEL1X and 0.80 MW for Genesis1.3, a factor of 2.2 discrepancy; the 8 keV values also differ by about 47%. The text says an "alignment" was confirmed, but the discrepancy is large and is never discussed. Please present the single-pass gain curves as a function of pass number (or at least the small-signal gain for each configuration), quantify the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the multi-pass simulations, and explain whether the factor-2.2 discrepancy reflects a near-threshold operating point or a modeling difference.
  3. [End Matter, "A Single Insertion Device" and Table II] The TGU cancellation condition is inconsistent with the tabulated parameters. The text states that the energy-spread cancellation condition is αD = (2+K^2)/K^2 and that D is the vertical dispersion, with D = 10.4 mm stated for both TGU cases. For K=1.73 this condition requires α≈160 m^-1, and for K=1.42 it requires α≈144 m^-1, whereas Table II lists α=213 m^-1 and 254 m^-1. The text also says α is essentially a geometric constant that does not scale with gap, which is hard to reconcile with the two different α values in Table II. Please reconcile the table with the stated formula, or define the quantities used in the simulation so that the cancellation condition can be verified.
  4. [Renieri limit paragraph, Eq. (2)] The Renieri-limit check is numerically ambiguous. Equation (2) is written as U_FEL ≤ (1/(4N_u))(q_e/e)U_0, and the text says this gives about 10 µJ for N_u=250, which is then compared with "the steady-state stored energy" in the 5 keV baseline, while Table III lists "Power" as 0.36 MW. The relationship among the per-pass generated energy U_FEL, the stored pulse energy, the cavity round-trip time, the number of bunches, and the power quoted in Table III is never defined. Please specify whether Table III powers are peak or average values, give the pulse length and repetition pattern, and show the numerical check of Eq. (2) explicitly so the consistency claim can be tested.
  5. [Optical cavity synchronization paragraph] The synchronization between the 48-bunch fill and the 23.99 m cavity is not demonstrated. The text says the optical round-trip time must match the electron bunch arrival interval, but it does not state the ring circumference, the harmonic number, or whether 23.99 m is the one-way or round-trip optical length. If the APS-U circumference is about 1104 m, a 48-bunch fill gives a bunch spacing near 23.0 m, not 23.99 m, so either the cavity length or the bunch pattern appears mismatched. Please state the synchronization condition and the definitions used, and explain how the cavity length is consistent with the chosen fill pattern.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References and prose] There are several typographical errors: "Revviews" in Ref. [8], "Radiatiation" in Ref. [13], "Synchrotron Radiatiation News" in Ref. [26], "Ressearch" in Ref. [39], and a duplicated "both both" in the TGU introduction. These should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The notation "1/4Nu" in Eq. (2) is ambiguous; it should be written as 1/(4N_u) to avoid confusion with (1/4)N_u.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption for Fig. 4 is unclear about the conversion from the simulated spectral distribution to brightness, and the phrase "Pass 1,000 (display x100)" is not explained. Please clarify the unit convention and the duty-cycle factor used to convert peak brightness to average brightness.
  4. [Table III] In Table III, the Genesis1.3 vertical emittance at 5 keV (4.03 pm rad) is below the initial value of 4.20 pm rad; please state whether this is a statistical fluctuation or a physical effect of the simulation.
  5. [Spectral claims] The abstract and text claim that all cases retain meV-level spectral purity, but only the 5 keV spectrum is shown. Please show the equilibrium spectra for the 8.05 keV and 10 keV cases, or soften the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the feasibility claim is a simulation result with independent cross-checks, and the asserted 5% loss threshold is a support gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a numerical feasibility result, not a derived equation, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The single-pass gains (roughly 8%, 6%, and >5%) are outputs of Genesis1.3 and FEL1X simulations, and the 5% threshold is an assumed loss/outcoupling budget stated in the End Matter ('we found that the FEL interaction must provide a single-pass gain explicitly exceeding ~5% which, in turn, guided our outcoupling threshold for all cases'). That threshold is an input design condition, not an output of the gain calculation, so there is no self-definitional reduction. The Renieri Saturation Limit (Eq. 2) is used only as an external consistency bound and is not used to set gain or power constants. The self-cited FEL1X code and the Python wrapper adapted from Ref. [31] are cross-checked against the independent, community-benchmarked Genesis1.3 and ELEGANT codes, with quantitative comparisons in Fig. 2 and Table III; thus the self-citations are not load-bearing. The phase-flattening procedure in the Bragg-crystal model is a modeling approximation, not a definition of cavity loss. The asserted 5% loss budget and the factor-2.2 discrepancy between codes at 5 keV are correctness and support concerns, not circularity. No equation reduces to its own input, and no external result is invoked solely through a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The free parameters are machine and simulation design choices. The most consequential are the TGU gradient, dispersion, and Gamma, which were tuned by scans to maximize the single-pass gain; the gain margin above threshold is only a few percent, so these choices carry the result. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Undulator period and K, 5 keV = lambda_u=1.94 cm, K0=2.25
    Chosen to place the FEL resonance at 5 keV within the 5 m APS-U straight; part of the design search, not an input with external constraint.
  • Undulator period and K, 8.05 keV TGU = lambda_u=1.7 cm, K0=1.73
    Chosen for the target photon energy and tuned to maximize single-pass gain.
  • Undulator period and K, 10 keV TGU = lambda_u=1.7 cm, K0=1.42
    Chosen for the target photon energy; lower K than the 8.05 keV case.
  • Transverse gradient alpha and dispersion D for TGU cases = alpha=213 m^-1 (8.05 keV), 254 m^-1 (10 keV), D=10.4 mm
    The vertical dispersion and magnetic gradient are set to the cancellation condition alpha*D=(2+K^2)/K^2 and then scanned to maximize gain.
  • TGU factor Gamma = 0 (5 keV), 3 (8.05 and 10 keV)
    Introduced in Table II and optimized by parameter scans; its definition is not given in the text, so its role is not independently checked.
  • Vertical emittance = epsilon_y=4.2 pm rad
    Assumed from APS-U design (10% coupling); the near-diffraction-limited claim at 5 keV depends on this value.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The FEL1X Fokker-Planck treatment correctly describes synchrotron damping and quantum excitation over 25,000 passes.
    The steady-state equilibria in Figs. 2-3 rest on this model; no comparison to full 6D tracking is shown for the FEL1X runs.
  • domain assumption A fresh, identical electron bunch interacts with the stored optical pulse on every pass under the 48-bunch filling pattern.
    The simulation assumes this to avoid cumulative single-bunch degradation; collective effects and bunch-to-bunch variation are not modeled.
  • domain assumption The phase-flattened Bragg-crystal model is equivalent to a physically detuned cavity.
    The Fourier-space phase factor exp(i*l*omega/c) removes crystal group delay; real crystals also have frequency-dependent phase curvature that may affect mode stability.
  • domain assumption Round-trip cavity losses are summarized by a single-pass gain threshold of about 5%.
    No explicit loss budget is provided in the text; the threshold guides outcoupling for all cases.
  • domain assumption The Renieri saturation limit as written in Eq. (2) applies to these oscillator parameters.
    Used as a consistency check; the paper's own numbers for stored energy and per-pass energy are not reconciled with the limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Realizing A Hard X-Ray Storage Ring Free Electron Laser Oscillator at the APS-U." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OYBEQICR

@misc{pith2026260810419,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Realizing A Hard X-Ray Storage Ring Free Electron Laser Oscillator at the APS-U},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OYBEQICR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10419}
}
read the original abstract

We show that the APS-U could support a hard X-ray storage ring free electron laser oscillator, providing a promising avenue toward high repetition rate, narrow bandwidth coherent light sources. The results of our numerical simulations demonstrate that a transverse gradient undulator yields ~8% and ~6% single-pass gain at 8.05 keV and 10 keV respectively. We further identify a configuration at 5 keV that does not require a TGU but still exceeds a 5% gain threshold despite the relatively short 5-meter long insertion device. All cases presented retain spectral purity on the order of meV and reach a steady-state output whose equilibrium is consistent with the Renieri Saturation Limit. We have calculated the 5 keV case to have an average brightness of ~10^26 photons/(s * mm2 * mrad2 * 0.1% BW), representing an increase in more than four orders of magnitude from the standard APS-U undulator. These results indicate that a storage ring free electron laser oscillator at multi-keV photon energies is feasible with nominal APS-U parameters and standard x-ray cavity optics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10419 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Layout of a TGU-based X-ray SRFELO. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Simulation of 10 keV SRFELO based on parame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Simulation in FEL1X of laser pulse power in the cav [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Peak intracavity brightness of the 5 keV SRFELO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T. H. Maiman, Stimulated optical radiation in ruby, Na- ture187, 493 (1960)

    work page 1960

  2. [2]

    R. E. Slusher, Laser technology, Reviews of Modern Physics71, S471 (1999)

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    Suckewer and C

    S. Suckewer and C. H. Skinner, Soft x-ray lasers and their applications, Science247, 1553 (1990)

    work page 1990

  4. [4]

    D. L. Matthews, Review of x-ray lasers, Nuclear Instru- ments and Methods in Physics Research B98, 91 (1995)

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    R. A. Bartels, A. Paul, H. Green, H. C. Kapteyn, M. M. Murnane, S. Backus, I. P. Christov, Y. Liu, D. T. Attwood, and C. Jacobsen, Generation of spatially co- herent light at extreme ultraviolet wavelengths, Science 297, 376 (2002)

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    J. M. J. Madey, Stimulated Emission of Bremsstrahlung in a Periodic Magnetic Field, Journal of Applied Physics 42, 1906 (1971)

    work page 1971

  7. [7]

    Pellegrini, The history of X-ray free-electron lasers, Eur

    C. Pellegrini, The history of X-ray free-electron lasers, Eur. Phys. J. H37, 659 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Pellegrini, The development of XFELs, Nature Revviews Physics2, 330 (2020)

    C. Pellegrini, The development of XFELs, Nature Revviews Physics2, 330 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Z. T. Zhao, Storage Ring Light Sources, Reviews of Ac- celerator Science and Technology03, 57 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Hettel, DLSR design and plans: an international overview, J

    R. Hettel, DLSR design and plans: an international overview, J. Synchrotron Radiat.21, 843 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Adamset al., Scientific Opportunities with an X-ray Free-Electron Laser Oscillator (2019), arXiv:1903.09317 [physics.ins-det]

    B. Adamset al., Scientific Opportunities with an X-ray Free-Electron Laser Oscillator (2019), arXiv:1903.09317 [physics.ins-det]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    M. Du, Z. W. Di, D. G¨ ursoy, R. P. Xian, Y. Kozorovit- skiy, and C. Jacobsen, Upscaling X-ray nanoimaging to macroscopic specimens, J. Appl. Crystallogr.54, 386 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Wang and L.-F

    S.-X. Wang and L.-F. Zhu, Non-resonant inelastic x-ray scattering spectroscopy: A momentum probe to detect the electronic structures of atoms and molecules, Matter and Radiatiation at Extremes5, 054201 (2020). [14]Report of the High-Energy X-ray FELs Workshop: Ex- ploring the ...

    2020

  6. [15]

    K.-J. Kim, Y. Shvyd’ko, and S. Reiche, A Proposal for an X-Ray Free-Electron Laser Oscillator with an Energy- Recovery Linac, Physical Review Letters100, 244802 (2008)

    2008

  7. [16]

    J. Dai, H. Deng, and Z. Dai, Proposal for an x-ray free electron laser oscillator with intermediate energy electron beam, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 034802 (2012)

    2012

  8. [17]

    Whiteet al., CBXFEL design, production, and in- stallation status, inProc

    M. Whiteet al., CBXFEL design, production, and in- stallation status, inProc. LINAC’24, Linear Accelerator Conference No. 32 (JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzer- land, 2024) pp. 758–761

    2024

  9. [18]

    Raueret al., Lasing of a cavity-based X-ray source, Nature (London)650, 93 (2026)

    P. Raueret al., Lasing of a cavity-based X-ray source, Nature (London)650, 93 (2026)

    2026

  10. [19]

    Billardon, P

    M. Billardon, P. Elleaume, J. M. Ortega, C. Bazin, M. Bergher, M. Velghe, Y. Petroff, D. A. G. Deacon, K. E. Robinson, and J. M. J. Madey, First Operation of a Storage-Ring Free-Electron Laser, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 1652 (1983)

    1983

  11. [20]

    M. E. Couprie, D. Garzella, and M. Billardon, Operation of the Super-ACO Free-Electron Laser in the UV range at 800 MeV, Europhys. Lett.21, 909 (1993)

    1993

  12. [21]

    Yamazaki, K

    T. Yamazaki, K. Yamada, S. Sugiyama, H. Ohgaki, N. Sei, T. Mikado, T. Noguchi, M. Chiwaki, R. Suzuki, M. Kawai, M. Yokoyama, K. Owaki, S. Hamada, K. Aizawa, Y. Oku, A. Iwata, and M. Yoshiwa, First las- ing of the NIJI-IV storage-ring free-electron laser, Nucl. Instrum. Methods...

    1993

  13. [22]

    Y. K. Wu, S. Mikhailov, J. Yan, P. Wallace, V. Popov, M. Pentico, G. Swift, M. W. Ahmed, L. Kochanneck, H. Ehlers, and L. O. Jensen, Lasing below 170 nm using an oscillator FEL, J. Appl. Phys.130, 183101 (2021)

    2021

  14. [23]

    Colella and A

    R. Colella and A. Luccio, Proposal for a free electron laser in the X-ray region, Optics Communications50, 41 (1984)

    1984

  15. [24]

    A. S. Fisher, J. C. Gallardo, H.-D. Nuhn, R. Tatchyn, H. Winick, and C. Pellegrini, 40 ˚A FEL designs for the PEP storage ring, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A318, 730 (1992)

    1992

  16. [25]

    Barlettaet al., Free electron lasers: Present status and future challenges, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A618, 69 (2010)

    W. Barlettaet al., Free electron lasers: Present status and future challenges, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A618, 69 (2010)

    2010

  17. [26]

    Y. Cai, Y. Ding, R. Hettel, Z. Huang, L. Wang, and L. Xiao, An x-ray free electron laser driven by an ulti- mate storage ring, Synchrotron Radiatiation News26, 39 (2013)

    2013

  18. [27]

    R. R. Lindberg, K.-J. Kim, Y. Cai, Y. Ding, and Z. Huang, Transverse gradient undulators for a storage ring x-ray FEL oscillator, inProc. FEL’13(JACoW Pub- lishing, Geneva, Switzerland, 2013) pp. 740–748

    2013

  19. [28]

    Agapov, Feasibility of a ring FEL at low emittance stor- age rings, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A793, 35 (2015)

    I. Agapov, Feasibility of a ring FEL at low emittance stor- age rings, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A793, 35 (2015)

    2015

  20. [29]

    I. V. Agapov, Y.-C. Chae, and W. Hillert, Low Gain FEL Oscillator Option for PETRA IV, inProc. 9th Int. Parti- cle Accel. Conf. (IPAC’18)(JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland, 2018) pp. 1420–1422

    2018

  21. [30]

    Lee, Storage ring based x-ray FEL oscillator, AIP Conf

    T.-Y. Lee, Storage ring based x-ray FEL oscillator, AIP Conf. Proc.2054, 030021 (2019)

    2019

  22. [31]

    Y. Li, R. Lindberg, and K.-J. Kim, Transverse gradient undulator in a storage ring x-ray free electron laser oscil- lator, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams26, 030702 (2023)

    2023

  23. [32]

    Hansen,Feasibility Study of X-ray Free Electron Lasers in Fourth Generation Storage Rings, Bachelor’s thesis, Lund University, Department of Physics, Lund, Sweden (2023)

    J. Hansen,Feasibility Study of X-ray Free Electron Lasers in Fourth Generation Storage Rings, Bachelor’s thesis, Lund University, Department of Physics, Lund, Sweden (2023)

    2023

  24. [33]

    L. H. Yu, V. Smaluk, T. Shaftan, G. Tiwari, and X. Yang, 6 3D small-gain formula allowing strong focusing and har- monic lasing for a ring-based x-ray free electron laser oscillator, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams27, 060702 (2024)

    2024

  25. [34]

    Aneke, K

    E. Aneke, K. P. Wootton, J. McChesney, H. Zheng, F. Rodolakis, and J. Freeland, Simulation and measure- ment of horizontal emittance via undulator high harmon- ics at the APS-U, J of Physics: Conference Series3010, 012032 (2025)

    2025

  26. [35]

    Aneke, J

    E. Aneke, J. McChesney, K. Wootton, and H. Zheng, Measurement of vertical and horizontal emittance via un- dulator high harmonics at the APS-U, inProc. IPAC’25, IPAC’25 - 16th International Particle Accelerator Confer- ence No. 16 (JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland,

  27. [36]

    T. I. Smith, J. M. J. Madey, L. R. Elias, and D. A. G. Deacon, Reducing the sensitivity of a free-electron laser to electron energy, Journal of Applied Physics50, 4580 (1979)

    1979

  28. [37]

    Huang, Y

    Z. Huang, Y. Ding, and C. B. Schroeder, Compact x-ray free-electron laser from a laser-plasma accelerator using a transverse-gradient undulator, Physical Review Letters 109, 204801 (2012)

    2012

  29. [38]

    K.-J. Kim, Z. Huang, and R. Lindberg,Synchrotron Ra- diation and Free-Electron Lasers: Principles of Coherent X-Ray Generation(Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    2017

  30. [39]

    Reiche, GENESIS 1.3: a fully 3D time-dependent FEL simulation code, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Ressearch A429, 243 (1999)

    S. Reiche, GENESIS 1.3: a fully 3D time-dependent FEL simulation code, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Ressearch A429, 243 (1999)

    1999

  31. [40]

    Borland,ELEGANT: A flexible SDDS-compliant code for accelerator simulation, Tech

    M. Borland,ELEGANT: A flexible SDDS-compliant code for accelerator simulation, Tech. Rep. LS-287 (Argonne National Laboratory, Advanced Photon Source, Lemont, IL, USA, 2000)

    2000

  32. [41]

    R. R. Lindberg and K.-J. Kim, Mode growth and com- petition in the x-ray free-electron laser oscillator start-up from noise, Physical Review Special Topics Accelerators and Beams12, 070702 (2009)

    2009

  33. [42]

    T. E. Fornek,Advanced Photon Source Upgrade Project Final Design Report, Tech. Rep. (Argonne National Lab- oratory (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States), 2019)

    2019

  34. [43]

    Margraf, R

    R. Margraf, R. Robles, A. Halavanau, J. Kryzywinski, K. Li, J. MacArthur, T. Osaka, A. Sakdinawat, T. Sato, Y. Sun, K. Tamasaku, Z. Huang, G. Marcus, and D. Zhu, Low-loss stable storage of 1.2 ˚A X-ray pulses in a 14 m Bragg cavity, Nat. Photon.17, 878 (2023)

    2023

  35. [44]

    Raubenheimer, The LCLS-II-HE, A High Energy Up- grade of the LCLS-II, inProc

    T. Raubenheimer, The LCLS-II-HE, A High Energy Up- grade of the LCLS-II, inProc. 60th ICFA Advanced Beam Dynamics Workshop (FLS’18), Shanghai, China, 5-9 March 2018, ICFA Advanced Beam Dynamics Work- shop No. 60 (JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzer- land, 2018) pp. 6–11, https:/...

    2018 doi

  36. [45]

    Dattoli and A

    G. Dattoli and A. Renieri, Storage ring operation of the free-electron laser: The oscillator, Nuovo Cimento59, 1 (1980)

    1980

  37. [46]

    Elleaume, Macro-temporal structure of storage ring free electron lasers, Journal de Physique45, 997 (1984)

    P. Elleaume, Macro-temporal structure of storage ring free electron lasers, Journal de Physique45, 997 (1984)

    1984

  38. [47]

    Dattoli, M.-E

    G. Dattoli, M.-E. Couprie, and C. Pellegrini, Riding the FEL Instability (Dedicated to Alberto Renieri), inProc. FEL’19, Free Electron Laser Conference No. 39 (JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland, 2019) pp. 1–6

    2019

  39. [48]

    J. C. Goldstein, Theory of the sideband instability in free electron lasers, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A237, 27 (1985)

    1985

  40. [49]

    W. B. Colson, The trapped-particle instability in free electron laser oscillators and amplifiers, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A250, 168 (1986)

    1986

  41. [50]

    Casalbuoniet al., Status of S-PRESSO, a supercon- ducting undulator for the European XFEL, Journal of Physics: Conference Series3094, 012009 (2025)

    S. Casalbuoniet al., Status of S-PRESSO, a supercon- ducting undulator for the European XFEL, Journal of Physics: Conference Series3094, 012009 (2025)

    2025

  42. [51]

    Kesginet al., Fabrication and Testing of 18-mm-Period, 0.5-m-Long Nb 3Sn Superconducting Undulator, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity31, 4100205 (2021)

    I. Kesginet al., Fabrication and Testing of 18-mm-Period, 0.5-m-Long Nb 3Sn Superconducting Undulator, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity31, 4100205 (2021)

    2021

  43. [52]

    Bernhard, N

    A. Bernhard, N. Braun, V. A. Rodr´ ıguez, P. Peiffer, R. Rossmanith, C. Widmann, and M. Scheer, Radiation emitted by transverse-gradient undulators, Physical Re- view Accelerators and Beams19, 090704 (2016)

    2016

  44. [53]

    C. Benabderrahmaneet al., Development and operation of a Pr 2Fe14B based cryogenic permanent magnet undu- lator for a high spatial resolution x-ray beam line, Phys- ical Review Accelerators and Beams20, 033201 (2017)

    2017

  45. [54]

    flattens

    Y. V. Shvyd’ko, S. Stoupin, A. Cunsolo, A. H. Said, and X. Huang, High-reflectivity high-resolution x-ray crystal optics with diamonds, Nature Physics6, 196 (2010). END MA TTER Feasibility of Insertion DevicesThe planar insertion device needed for the 5 keV oscillator is feasi...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.