Comparison of Achievable Magnetic Fields with Superconducting and Cryogenic Permanent Magnet Undulators – A Comprehensive Study of Computed and Measured Values

Cryogenic permanent magnet and superconducting undulators

“…The fields of hybrid type CPMUs have been parametrized according to Eq.3 at the APS [45] and at the HZB. In the APS-model the pole and magnet transverse dimensions are fixed, whereas in the HZBmodel, these dimensions are scaled with 𝑔𝑎𝑝 𝜆 ⁄ .…”

“…Several CPMU-prototypes based on Nd 2 Fe 14 B and Pr 2 Fe 14 B have been built for the exploration of technical limits (summaries in [5] [13] [45]). A few of them have seen electron beam [50] [51].…”

Free Electron Laser Performance within the EuPRAXIA Facility

“…Each previously discussed beam distribution is analyzed and matched to two different undulator configurations [12], in order to probe the beam phase space features with two different cooperation lengths: one targeting λ R 0.2 nm with 5 GeV beam energy, and within present and near future undulator technology [35,36] and the other such that L c /σ z ∼ 1% at E = 5 GeV and L c /σ z ∼ 10% at E = 1 GeV. Table 2 shows the features of the chosen undulator configurations.…”

Compact undulator line for a high-brilliance soft-X-ray free-electron laser at MAX IV

“…For the superconducting undulator (SCU), the scaling law for B 0 is different from equation (3). An alternative formulation was devised by Kim (2005) and summarized by Moog et al (2017) as follows:…”

“…Note that equation (4) applies to NbTi superconducting wires at 80% of the critical current density. For Nb 3 Sn superconducting wires, the expression is otherwise identical to equation (4), except that it needs to be multiplied by a factor of 1.3 (Moog et al, 2017). In both equation (3) and equation (4), B 0 can be increased by increasing u or decreasing g. For any given u , the largest achievable B 0 is limited by the smallest acceptable g, which is determined by the beam stay-clear.…”