Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Beam Intensity Limitations in Future Multi-Bend Achromat Light Sources

T0 review · 3 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 The paper claims that 6 GeV multi-bend achromat light sources are close to a fundamental brightness limit: space charge and intra-beam scattering cap emittance near 10 pm, and only raising the beam energy can break the cap.

desk verdict A useful scaling analysis with a clean SC brightness bound, but the 10 pm floor is an H6BA-specific result, not a universal limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11022 v1 pith:TRQZD5XJ submitted 2025-05-16 physics.acc-ph

Ilya Agapov , Sergey Antipov This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.acc-ph
keywords storageringsmulti-bendachromatPETRAIVintra-beamscatteringspacechargetuneshiftemittancelimitphotonbrightnesslow-emittancelattice
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

The paper argues that fourth-generation 6 GeV storage-ring light sources, using PETRA IV as the reference, have nearly reached the smallest emittance their beam energy allows. Two collective effects, space charge tune spread and intra-beam scattering, prevent meaningful emittance reduction below about 10 pm unless the beam energy is increased. The core quantitative result is a lattice-independent bound on the product of peak brightness and horizontal emittance, $B \times \epsilon_x \lesssim 8\gamma^3 I_A/(\pi C)$, set by energy and circumference alone. If true, this means no redesign of the magnet lattice at fixed 6 GeV and 2304 m circumference can substantially beat the planned PETRA IV brightness, and the path to much brighter sources must go through higher energy.

What carries the argument

The numerical backbone is a one-parameter family of lattices formed by scaling the PETRA IV hybrid six-bend achromat (H6BA) cell: all element lengths are divided by $f$, quadrupole strengths scale as $f^2$, and sextupole strengths as $f^4$ to keep chromaticity corrected. This family supplies the radiation integrals, damping times, bunch lengths, IBS growth rates, and space charge tune shifts used in the parameter scans. Two equations carry the argument: Eq. (7), the lattice-independent brightness–emittance cap from space charge, and Eq. (9), the equilibrium emittance set by the balance of synchrotron radiation damping and IBS growth. The result is an emittance landscape with an IBS-dominated floor and a space-charge-excluded region, both shifting favorably only when the beam energy rises.

What would settle it

Design a complete 6 GeV, 2304 m MBA lattice with full chromaticity correction whose average dispersion invariant $H$ at 10 pm emittance is materially below the scaled H6BA values shown in Fig. 2, or measure at an operating 6 GeV ring a brightness–emittance combination that violates the bound of Eq. (7) by crossing the integer resonance through space charge tune spread.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that intensity limitations, not the focusing lattice, set the practical floor for emittance in 6 GeV multi-bend achromat rings. Space charge gives a hard upper bound through Eq. (7): the product of peak brightness and horizontal emittance cannot exceed $8\gamma^3 I_A/(\pi C)$, independent of how the magnets are arranged. Intra-beam scattering adds a second ceiling: when the IBS growth rate approaches the synchrotron radiation damping rate, the equilibrium emittance in Eq. (9) diverges and further shrinking the lattice produces almost no gain. For PETRA IV parameters the combined effect excludes emittances below roughly 5–10 pm; the paper concludes that emittances near 1–2 pm require raising the beam energy to 10–18 GeV, which would also extend diffraction-limited photon energies by about an order of magnitude and increase peak brightness by more than two orders of magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

The limit rests on treating a uniformly scaled PETRA IV H6BA cell as representative of all practical multi-bend achromat lattices at a given emittance; if a real lattice can reach the same emittance with significantly smaller dispersion invariant $H$ or less demanding chromaticity correction, the IBS floor and the 10 pm conclusion would move.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 6 GeV and 2304 m circumference, PETRA IV-like conditions set a brightness cap near $1.5 \times 10^{24}\,\mathrm{A/m^2}$, and space charge alone excludes emittances below 5–10 pm for realistic bunch lengths and coupling.
  • At fixed 6 GeV, shrinking the lattice cell beyond roughly a factor 2.5 gives almost no emittance gain because IBS growth overtakes synchrotron damping.
  • Raising the energy to about 10 GeV makes emittances near 1 pm accessible, and at 16–18 GeV a 2 pm emittance would produce more than two orders of magnitude more peak brightness and one order of magnitude more photon-energy reach.
  • Damping wigglers can mitigate the IBS contribution by up to about a factor of two, as planned for PETRA IV, but do not remove the space charge limit.
  • The intensity limits are independent of machine size, so a very large ring such as a 90 km, 20 GeV booster could reach 1–2 pm emittance before hitting the same intensity constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Eq. (7) is universal, then for a fixed photon energy near the diffraction limit (about 10 pm at 10 keV), reducing emittance below 10 pm at 6 GeV would buy little brightness; the only path to genuinely new capability is higher beam energy.
  • The paper's conclusion depends on treating the scaled H6BA family as representative of all practical MBA lattices; a different lattice class with lower dispersion invariant $H$ at the same circumference and chromaticity cost could shift the IBS floor, so a general lower bound on $H$ would strengthen the claim.
  • Because the space charge limit improves with smaller circumference while IBS is easier to handle with stronger damping, there may be an optimal ring size for a target emittance; the paper notes smaller machines are harder but does not optimize over circumference.
  • The assumed 40 ps bunch lengthening changes the space-charge exclusion region but not the IBS floor, so experiments on existing rings with different harmonic-cavity settings could test the model's sensitivity directly.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies intensity limits for future multi-bend achromat (MBA) light sources, using PETRA IV as the reference machine. It derives a space-charge brightness limit B×ε_x ≲ 8γ^3 I_A/(πC) from a simplified vertical tune-shift formula (Eqs. 6 and 7), and it evaluates the intra-beam scattering (IBS) equilibrium for a family of lattices obtained by uniform rescaling of the PETRA IV H6BA cell. The numerical landscapes in Figs. 5-7 lead to the claim that, at 6 GeV and 2304 m circumference, the equilibrium emittance cannot be pushed much below 10 pm for the assumed 1 nC bunches, so further brightness requires increasing the beam energy. The paper also discusses Touschek lifetime, collective instabilities, brightness scaling, and technological implications of higher-energy operation.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides a useful design envelope showing that current 6 GeV MBA parameters are close to an intensity-limited optimum and that increasing beam energy is the principal remaining lever for brightness. The derivation of Eq. (7) is a clean analytic chain from standard formulas, and the authors are transparent about their assumptions, explicitly exploring an alternative bunch-length scenario and noting the expected effect of damping wigglers. The SPECTRA-based brightness curves in Fig. 8 add concrete quantitative context. The main qualification is that the binding constraint in the standard-coupling case is the IBS equilibrium, and the numerical IBS floor is computed from a single-parameter scaling of one H6BA lattice; the universality of that floor is asserted rather than demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Natural emittance scaling / Minimum achievable emittance] The claim that the H6BA scaling family is representative of all MBA lattices at a given emittance is load-bearing for the IBS-dominated floor in Fig. 5, but it is asserted without proof. The IBS growth rates in Eq. (10) depend on the lattice through averages such as ⟨H_x(β_x β_y)^(−1/4)⟩ and through the chromaticity-correction scheme, and different MBA designs (different phase advances, interleaved sextupoles, longitudinal gradient bends, 7BA/8BA cells) can reach a given bare emittance with different dispersion invariants H. Since all numerical landscapes in Figs. 5-7 are generated from a single-parameter rescaling of the PETRA IV H6BA cell, the quantitative statement in the Conclusion that emittances below about 10 pm are impossible at 6 GeV is not established for MBA lattices in general. I recommend validating the floor with a second lattice family (for example, a published 8BA or 7BA design with different optics) or reformulating the claim as a property of the H6BA scaling family rather than as a general impossibility.
  2. [Conclusion / Fig. 5] The '10 pm floor' is presented as a fundamental limitation, but the numerical calculation assumes a specific intensity: 1 nC bunch charge and a factor-10 bunch lengthening to 40 ps. Equation (10) has α_IBS proportional to N, so reducing the bunch charge by an order of magnitude reduces the IBS growth rate by an order of magnitude and, through Eq. (9), moves the equilibrium emittance substantially closer to the bare emittance ε_0. Thus the paper's own model does not exclude sub-10 pm equilibrium emittance at 6 GeV for, say, 0.1 nC bunches. The Conclusion should state the intensity assumptions explicitly and should describe the floor as a property of the assumed operating point, not as a fundamental limit.
  3. [Eq. (7) / Appendix A] The space-charge limit in Eq. (7) is derived by replacing ⟨p(1−p)⟩ in Appendix A with its upper bound 1/4. It is therefore an inequality that provides a sufficient condition for avoiding an integer tune crossing, not an exact equality, and it should be described as a conservative estimate. In addition, the treatment of integer-resonance crossing as a hard stability boundary for a Gaussian bunch in an electron ring with radiation damping is asserted rather than demonstrated; the text should either justify this threshold or temper the phrase 'hard, first-principle limit.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (10)] In the expression for α_IBS^p, the factor 'ϵ^{3/4}_x ϵ^{3/4}_x' should presumably be 'ϵ^{3/4}_x ϵ^{3/4}_y'; as written one of the two factors is a typo.
  2. [Eq. (5)] The angle-bracket notation ⟨...⟩ is used without definition; please state explicitly that it denotes an average over the ring circumference C.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says '6BA scaling' while the text refers to the H6BA cell; please make the terminology consistent.
  4. [Other effects] Equation (12) gives the Touschek lifetime as proportional to 1/(γ^2 δ_acc^3), yet the text states that the lifetime 'will further increase with beam energy'; this is only true if the momentum acceptance δ_acc grows or if other factors dominate, so the statement should be qualified.
  5. [Conclusion] The conclusion states that 'the limitations are independent of the machine size,' which is in tension with the preceding text noting that smaller emittances are more accessible at larger machines and that the space-charge effect increases with circumference; please reconcile these statements.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Space-charge brightness bound is derived from first principles; only the quantitative 5–10 pm SC floor rests on a same-author unpublished citation [16], while the IBS-based 10 pm landscape is computed in-house and not circular.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 'Space charge estimates', paragraph after Eq. (7); Ref. [16]]
    "For the PETRA IV circumference, bunch length, and 6 GeV energy, the space charge effect would limit the emittance to about 5 − 10 pm [16]."

    The numeric space-charge floor quoted in support of the central conclusion is not derived in this paper. It is attributed to Ref. [16], 'Space charge limit for light sources', an IPAC'25 contribution by the same authors (Antipov, Agapov, Cortés) listed as 'to be presented'. If that floor is obtained from the same integer-resonance tune-shift criterion encoded in Eq. (7) with PETRA IV parameters, then the cited number is an input restated as a limit rather than independent evidence. The paper itself adds a footnote acknowledging that the exact limit depends on bunch length and coupling. This self-citation is not the only pillar of the 10 pm conclusion, because the IBS-limited landscape in Figs.

full rationale

The main derivation is self-contained. Equation (7), B x epsilon_x <= 8 gamma^3 I_A/(pi C), follows algebraically from the Gaussian space-charge tune shift (5), the flat-beam bound in Appendix A, the peak-brightness definition B = 2I/(pi^2 epsilon_x epsilon_y), and the integer-resonance condition |Delta nu| <= 1/2; none of these ingredients is fitted to the conclusion. The intra-beam scattering analysis is likewise an in-house computation: Eq. (9) is the standard equilibrium condition epsilon = epsilon_0/(1 - alpha_IBS/alpha_SR), Eq. (10) gives the standard Piwinski/Bane growth rates, and Figs. 5–7 are numerical outputs for the stated assumptions (1 nC bunch charge, 40 ps bunch length, coupling kappa). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The only circularity-adjacent element is the quantitative space-charge floor of 'about 5–10 pm', which is assigned to Ref. [16], an unpublished same-author IPAC contribution rather than being recalculated in the text; this is a minor load-bearing self-citation for the SC portion of the argument. The paper's broader generalization from the uniformly scaled H6BA family to all MBA lattices rests on the explicit assertion that other designs 'will necessarily be similar' in beta functions, dispersion invariant H, and radiation integrals. That is an unproven representativeness premise and a real correctness risk, but it is not an equation-level circularity because the numerical landscape is not defined to be identical to the premise; the equations are standard and the outputs are genuine calculations. Overall, the central brightness bound is independently grounded, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper builds on standard synchrotron radiation and collective-effect formulas; its quantitative conclusions depend on three hand-set inputs (bunch charge, bunch lengthening, allowed SC tune shift) and one strong structural assumption (H6BA scaling representativeness). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Maximum allowed vertical space charge tune shift |Delta_nu_y| = 1/2
    Chosen to avoid crossing integer resonance; converts the tune-shift formula into Eq. (7). A different threshold changes the constant in the brightness limit.
  • Bunch lengthening factor by harmonic RF = 10
    Assumed to stretch the natural about 7 ps bunch to about 40 ps; directly affects SC tune shift and IBS growth rates.
  • Bunch charge per bunch = 1 nC
    Input for all equilibrium emittance landscapes (Figs. 5-7) and the SC exclusion area.
  • Synchrotron frequency used in bunch-length scaling = 1 kHz
    Fixed by hand when scanning lattice scale to remove implicit momentum-compaction dependence; authors note an alternative fixed-bunch-length assumption gives only minor differences.
  • Transverse coupling ratio kappa = 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 in scans
    Sets vertical emittance and affects vertical IBS and space charge; results are shown for three values.
  • Lattice scale factor f = scanned, e.g. 1 to 4 in Figs. 2 and 5
    Reduces all H6BA element lengths; quadrupole strengths scale as f^2 and sextupoles as f^4. Defines the emittance-reduction pathway studied.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Standard equilibrium emittance, energy spread, and bunch length formulas (Eq. 1) from Sands [10].
    Used as the starting point for all scaling arguments.
  • standard math Gaussian-bunch space charge tune shift formula (Eq. 5) from prior literature [12-15].
    Basis for Eq. (6) and the brightness limit Eq. (7).
  • standard math IBS growth-rate model (Eqs. 10-11) from Bane and Piwinski [18, 19].
    Used to compute equilibrium emittance with synchrotron radiation damping and IBS.
  • ad hoc to paper H6BA lattice scaling is representative of all MBA lattices at fixed emittance.
    Explicitly asserted in the 'Natural emittance scaling' section; not proven, and all numerical landscapes depend on it.
  • domain assumption Space charge tune spread must not cross the integer resonance, |Delta_nu_y| <= 1/2.
    Operational stability criterion used to derive Eq. (7); the exact value is heuristic.
  • domain assumption Vertical IBS is negligible; vertical emittance is set by coupling ratio kappa with H_y approximately 0.
    Used in the numerical IBS equilibrium solution, stated in 'Minimum achievable emittance'.
  • domain assumption Bunch length can be increased by a factor of 10 via a harmonic RF system.
    Assumed for Figs. 5-6; an alternative constant 40 ps case (Fig. 7) changes results only slightly.
  • domain assumption Damping wigglers are ignored in the main analysis.
    Stated in a footnote; affects IBS but not the SC limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beam Intensity Limitations in Future Multi-Bend Achromat Light Sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TRQZD5XJ

@misc{pith2026250511022,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beam Intensity Limitations in Future Multi-Bend Achromat Light Sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TRQZD5XJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11022}
}
read the original abstract

We show that emittance of fourth-generation 6 GeV machines such as PETRA IV is close to what is theoretically achievable due to beam intensity limitations from space charge and intra-beam scattering. Investigating these limitations, in particular their scaling with the bare lattice emittance and the beam energy, we argue that achieving further significant emittance reduction and increase in radiation brightness is only possible by increasing the beam energy. We outline the design and technological challenges on the way to such improvement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11022 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The scaled H6BA cell of PETRA IV reduced in length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Scaling with energy and cell length of natural emit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Damping times (a) and energy spread (b) vs. beam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Evolution of SR and IBS rates (a) and emittance (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Achievable emittances as a function of beam energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Achievable emittances as a function of beam energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Radiation brightness for various scenarios. For all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    This IBS threshold is increased and smaller equilibrium emittances can be reached at higher beam energies

    Beyond that point the equilibrium emittance is fully dominated by the IBS. This IBS threshold is increased and smaller equilibrium emittances can be reached at higher beam energies. Minimum achievable emittance In order to find the equilibrium emittance in the pres- ence of strong IBS we solved for an equilibrium between IBS, SR and quantum excitation giv...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Einfeld, M

    D. Einfeld, M. Plesko, and J. Schaper, First multi-bend achromat lattice consideration, Journal of Synchrotron Radiation 21, 856 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    H. N. Chapman, Fourth-generation light sources, IUCrJ 10, 246 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Raimondi, C

    P. Raimondi, C. Benabderrahmane, P. Berkvens, J. C. Biasci, P. Borowiec, J.-F. Bouteille, T. Brochard, N. B. Brookes, N. Carmignani, L. R. Carver, J.-M. Chaize, J. Chavanne, S. Checchia, Y. Chushkin, F. Cianciosi, M. Di Michiel, R. Dimper, A. D’Elia, D. Einfeld, F. Ewald, L. Farvacque, L. Goirand, L. Hardy, J. Jacob, L. Jolly, M. Krisch, G. Le Bec, I. Lec...

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Chae, H.-C

    Y.-C. Chae, H.-C. Chao, et al. , Petra iv: the ultralow- emittance source project at desy, Synchrotron Radiation 25, 1277 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Schroer, R

    C. Schroer, R. Roehlsberger, E. Weckert, R. Wanzen- berg, I. Agapov, R. Brinkmann, and W. Leemans, eds., PETRA IV: upgrade of PETRA III to the Ultimate 3D X-ray microscope. Conceptual Design Report (Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Hamburg, 2019) pp. 259 pages : illustrations, diagrams

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Migliorati, L

    M. Migliorati, L. Palumbo, and M. Zobov, Bunch length control in dafne by a higher harmonic cavity, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 354, 215 (1995)

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    S. A. Antipov, V. Gubaidulin, I. Agapov, E. C. Cort´ es Garc´ ıa, and A. Gamelin, Space charge effects in fourth-generation light sources: The petra iv and soleil ii cases, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 28, 024401 (2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Agapov, S

    I. Agapov, S. Antipov, R. Bartolini, R. Brinkmann, Y. Chae, E. Cortes-Garcia, D. Einfeld, T. Hellert, M. Huening, M. Jebramcik, et al. , Beam dynamics per- formance of the proposed petra iv storage ring, arXiv e-prints , arXiv (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Raimondi and S

    P. Raimondi and S. M. Liuzzo, Toward a diffraction lim- ited light source, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 26, 021601 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Sands, The Physics of Electron Storage Rings: An Introduction, Conf

    M. Sands, The Physics of Electron Storage Rings: An Introduction, Conf. Proc. C 6906161, 257 (1969)

    1969

  4. [12]

    Wolski, Low-emittance storage rings, in CERN Ac- celerator School: Advanced Accelerator Physics Course (2014) pp

    A. Wolski, Low-emittance storage rings, in CERN Ac- celerator School: Advanced Accelerator Physics Course (2014) pp. 245–294, arXiv:1507.02213 [physics.acc-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Decking and R

    W. Decking and R. Brinkmann, Space charge problems in the TESLA damping ring, in 7th European Particle Accelerator Conference (EPAC 2000) (2000) pp. 1024– 1026

    2000

  6. [14]

    A. Xiao, M. Borland, L. Emery, Y. Wang, and K. Y. Ng, Direct Space Charge Calculation in Elegant and Its Application to the ILC Damping Ring, Conf. Proc. C 070625, 3456 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    Rumolo, J

    G. Rumolo, J. B. Jeanneret, Y. Papaphilippou, and D. Quatraro, Collective Effects in the CLIC Damping Rings, Conf. Proc. C 0806233, MOPP049 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    Zampetakis, F

    M. Zampetakis, F. Antoniou, F. Asvesta, H. Bartosik, and Y. Papaphilippou, Interplay of space charge, intra- beam scattering, and synchrotron radiation in the com- pact linear collider damping rings, Physical Review Ac- celerators and Beams 27 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    S. A. Antipov, I. Agapov, and C. E. Cort´ es, Space charge limit for light sources, in to be presented at IPAC’25 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Bartolini, Touschek and Intrabeam Scattering in Ul- tralow Emittance Storage Rings, JACoW IPAC2022, MOIYSP2 (2022)

    R. Bartolini, Touschek and Intrabeam Scattering in Ul- tralow Emittance Storage Rings, JACoW IPAC2022, MOIYSP2 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    K. L. F. Bane, A Simplified model of intra- beam scattering, in 8th European Particle Accelera- tor Conference (EPAC 2002) (2002) pp. 1443–1445, arXiv:physics/0206002

    2002 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Piwinski, Intra-beam-Scattering, in 9th International Conference on High-Energy Accelerators (1974) pp

    A. Piwinski, Intra-beam-Scattering, in 9th International Conference on High-Energy Accelerators (1974) pp. 405– 409

    1974

  13. [21]

    Tanaka, Major upgrade of the synchrotron radia- tion calculation code spectra, Journal of Synchrotron ra- diation 4, https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600577521004100 (2021)

    T. Tanaka, Major upgrade of the synchrotron radia- tion calculation code spectra, Journal of Synchrotron ra- diation 4, https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600577521004100 (2021)

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    Vannozzi, D

    A. Vannozzi, D. Alesini, C. Sanelli, and C. Vac- carezza, New tunable high gradient permanent mag- net quadrupole for plasma wake field acceleration at SPARC LAB, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1596, 012009 (2020). 9

    2020

  15. [23]

    Winkler et al

    P. Winkler et al. , Active energy compression of a laser-plasma electron beam, Nature 10.1038/s41586-025- 08772-y (2025)

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    S. A. Antipov et al. , Design of a prototype laser-plasma injector for an electron synchrotron, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 24, 111301 (2021), arXiv:2106.07367 [physics.acc- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Posen et al

    S. Posen et al. , High gradient performance and quench behavior of a verification cryomodule for a high energy continuous wave linear accelerator, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 25, 042001 (2022), arXiv:2110.14580 [physics.acc- ph]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Chen et al., Ultra-high quality factor and ultra-high accelerating gradient achievements in a 1.3 GHz contin- uous wave cryomodule, Nucl

    J.-F. Chen et al., Ultra-high quality factor and ultra-high accelerating gradient achievements in a 1.3 GHz contin- uous wave cryomodule, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 36, 25 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Agapov, E

    I. Agapov, E. E. Alp, K. Andre, S. Antipov, A. Apyan, G. Arduini, L. Bandiera, W. Bartmann, H. Bar- tosik, M. Benedikt, S. Bettoni, J. Byrd, M. Cal- viani, A. Camper, C. Carli, S. Casalbuoni, A. Chance, P. Craievich, P. Crivelli, B. Dalena, M. Dickmann, M. Doser, I. Drebot, C....

    2025

Pith tools

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