Cited by 80Laser-Plasma Interactions and DiagnosticsParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron LasersLaser-Matter Interactions and Applications

Femtosecond x-rays from Thomson scattering using laser wakefield accelerators

Open access
Catravas, P, Esarey, E, Leemans, W P·2001·Measurement Science and Technology

Abstract

The possibility of producing femtosecond x-rays through Thomson scattering high power laser beams off laser wakefield generated relativistic electron beams is discussed. The electron beams are produced with either a self-modulated laser wakefield accelerator (SM-LWFA) or through a standard laser wakefield accelerator (LWFA) with optical injection. For an SM-LWFA (LWFA) produced electron beam, a broad (narrow) energy distribution is assumed, resulting in x-ray spectra that are broadband (monochromatic). Designs are presented for 3-100 fs x-ray pulses and the expected flux and brightness of these sources are compared.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0957-0233/12/11/310

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The peak current is on the order of 10 kA with emittance comparable to the best state of the art RF facilities.

    “The peak current is on the order of 10 kA with emittance comparable to the best state of the art RF facilities 11 .”

    From High-quality electron beams from a laser wakefield accelerator using plasma-channel guiding (2004) · cites this paper as [11]

    In Section III, the paper reports at least 5 nC per bunch for the self-modulated laser wakefield accelerator; Table I gives a 100 fs bunch length, implying a peak current on the order of 10 kA. Table I also lists a normalized emittance of 1 mm-mrad, but the paper does not establish that this is comparable to the best state-of-the-art RF facilities. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Many applications including high energy physics and radiation sources require monoenergetic beams (percent energy spread or less) with at least 10^9 electrons.

    “While these beams are useful for some users 9 , many applications including high energy physics and radiation sources require monoenergetic beams (percent energy spread or less) with at least 10 9 electrons [10][11][12][13] .”

    From High-quality electron beams from a laser wakefield accelerator using plasma-channel guiding (2004) · cites this paper as [11]

    Section II explains that a broad electron-energy distribution degrades the Thomson-scattered radiation spectrum, and the Conclusion says low energy spread enables greater peak brightness. But the paper does not state that high-energy physics and radiation-source applications require percent-level energy spread and at least 10^9 electrons together. Its narrow-spread injector example in Section III.B instead gives approximately 0.5–1.5 × 10^7 electrons. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. F.R. Arutyumain and V.A. Tumanian, Phys. Lett. 4, 173 (1963);
  2. R.H. Milburn, Phys. Rev. Lett., 10, 75 (1963);
  3. E.S. Sarachik and G.T. Schappert, Phys. Rev. D, 1, 2738 (1970).
  4. W.P. Leemans, R.W. Schoenlein, P. Volfbeyn, A.H. Chin, T.E. Glover, P. Balling, M. Zolotorev, K.J. Kim, S. Chattopadhyay and C.V. Shank, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 33 (1997) 1925.
  5. Ting, A., R. Fischer, A. Fisher, K. Evans, R. Burris, J. Krall, E. Esarey and P. Sprangle, J. Appl. Phys. 78, 575 (1995);
  6. F. Glotin, J.-M. Ortega, R. Prazeres, G. Devanz and O. Marcouille, Phys. Rev. Lett., 77, 3130 (1996).
  7. F.E. Carroll, J. W. Waters, R. H. Traeger, M. H. Mendenhall, W.-W. Clark, C. A. Brau, SPIE Proceedings Vol. 3614: 139-146, January 1999.
  8. E. Esarey, P. Sprangle, J. Krall, and A. Ting, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. PS-24, 252 (1996).
  9. E. Esarey, J. Krall and P. Sprangle, Phys. Rev. Lett., 72, 2887 (1994).
  10. D. Umstadter, S.-Y. Chen, A. Maksimchuk, G. Mourou, and R. Wagner, Science 273, 472 (1996);
  11. R. Wagner, S.Y. Chen, A. Maksimchuk, and D. Umstadter, Phys.Rev.Lett. 78, 3125 (1997).
  12. A.Ting, C.I.Moore, K.Krushelnick, C.Manka, E.Esarey, P.Sprangle, R.Hubbard, H.R.Burris, and M.Baine, Phys. Plasmas 4, 1889 (1997);
  13. C.Moore, A.Ting, K.Krushelnick, E.Esarey, R.F.Hubbard, H.R.Burris, C.Manka, and P.Sprangle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3909 (1997).
  14. D.Gordon, K.C.Tzeng, C.E.Clayton, A.E.Dangor, V.Malka, K.A.Marsh, A. Modena, W.B.Mori, P.Muggli, Z.Najmudin, D.Neely, C.Danson, and C.Joshi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2133 (1998).
  15. M. I. K. Santala, Z. Najmudin, E. L. Clark, M. Tatarakis, K. Krushelnick, A. E. Dangor, V. Malka, J. Faure, R. Allott, and R. J. Clarke Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1227 (2001).
  16. E. Esarey, R. F. Hubbard, W. P. Leemans, A. Ting, and P. Sprangle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2682 (1997).
  17. C.B. Schroeder, P.B. Lee, J.S. Wurtele, E. Esarey, and W.P. Leemans, Phys. Rev. E 59, 6037 (1999).
  18. E. Esarey, C.B. Schroeder, W.P. Leemans, and B. Hafizi, Phys. Plasmas 6, 2262 (1999).
  19. D. Umstadter, J. K. Kim, and E. Dodd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 2073 (1996).
  20. R. G. Hemker, K.-C. Tzeng, W. B. Mori, C. E. Clayton, and T. Katsouleas, Phys. Rev. E 57, 5920 (1998).
  21. G. Fubiani, W. Leemans and E. Esarey, Submitted to Proc. of Advanced Accelerator Workshop, Santa Fe, NM, June, 2000.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Catravas, P., Esarey, E., & Leemans, W. P.
Affiliations
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
Venue
Measurement Science and Technology
Published
2001-10-09
Volume
12
Issue
11
Pages
1828-1834
ISSN
  • 0957-0233 (ISSN-L)
  • 1361-6501
OpenAlex
W1991294576
Cited by
80
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Measurement Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • University of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Energy
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Laser-Plasma Interactions and Diagnostics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Particle Accelerators and Free-Electron Lasers
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Laser-Matter Interactions and Applications
Keywords
Thomson scattering, laser wakefield acceleration, relativistic electron beams, optical injection, X-ray spectra, X-ray brightness, X-ray flux, laser-plasma interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review