Changeset 586 in ETALON for papers/2016_IPAC/IPAC16_SP_CTR/MOPMB003.tex

Timestamp:

Apr 28, 2016, 5:32:00 PM (8 years ago)

Author:

hodnevuc

Message:

 

File:

• papers/2016_IPAC/IPAC16_SP_CTR/MOPMB003.tex (modified) (9 diffs)

papers/2016_IPAC/IPAC16_SP_CTR/MOPMB003.tex

@@ -110 +110 @@
   \label{sey2dctr}
 \end{figure}
-
-
-
 \subsection{Coherent Radiation}
-
-
-
 %So, as both CTR and Smith-Purcell radiation depends from form factor of the time profile of the bunch (see eq. \ref{eq:eq1}),so they both  can be used to diagnose longitudinal beam profile. 
-
-
-
 %Using the profile shape information from~\cite{clio} and the SEY, we can predict the spatial distribution of the energy for both effects. 
-
-
-
-
-
-
 The calculation of coherent radiation was done with the same parameters than for the SEY. For others grating this distribution would be different, but this gives us an approximate space distribution of the CSPR. From these simulations, we can conclude  that most of the radiation is confined in  approximatively $\pm$\ang{6} in azimuthal ($\phi$)  angle. So a standard 50~mm parabolic mirror at a distance of 300~mm  from the grating will collect most of the radiation.\par
 To choose the most appropriate grating pitch, one should use the condition given in equation~\ref{eq:lmab}.  For maximum emission at 90 deg. the formula \label{eq:pitch_pulselength} is applicable.
@@ -139 +124 @@
 
 
-\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\begin{figure}[!htbp]
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{MOPMB003f4.pdf}
@@ -157 +142 @@
 
 
-\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\begin{figure}[!htbp]
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{MOPMB003f5.pdf}
@@ -176 +161 @@
 %\end{figure}
 
-\begin{figure}[tbp]
+\begin{figure}[!tbp]
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{MOPMB003f6.pdf}
@@ -182 +167 @@
   \label{f14}
 \end{figure}
-
-\begin{figure}[tbp]
+Using the bunch profile predicted for the CLIO Free Electron Laser~\cite{clio}, as shown on figure~\ref{Prof1} we can predict the spectrum for both CSPR and CTR as shown on figure~\ref{spctr}. We can see that the intensity of the CTR signal is  lower, but it is concentrated in a small solid angle. For CSPR the signal intensity depends on the beam-grating separation.
+
+
+
+\begin{figure}[!tbp]
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{MOPMB003f7.pdf}
@@ -190 +178 @@
 \end{figure}
 
-\begin{figure}[bp]
+\begin{figure}[!bp]
   \centering
   \vspace{1.8cm}
@@ -198 +186 @@
 \end{figure}
 
-\begin{figure}[tbp]
+\begin{figure}[!tbp]
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{MOPMB003f9.pdf}
@@ -204 +192 @@
   \label{spctr}
 \end{figure}
+\section{Conclusion}
+We have studied both CSPR and CTR and studied how to optimize the experimental parameters. Using the CLIO parameters we expect a signal (in the range 0.03-3 THz [ 0.1 - 10 mm]) of \SI{8.37e-7}{J} for CSPR and \SI{7.35e-08}{J} for CTR.\par
 
 %\begin{figure}[!htb]
@@ -212 +202 @@
 %\end{figure}%
 
-Using the bunch profile predicted for the CLIO Free Electron Laser~\cite{clio}, as shown on figure~\ref{Prof1} we can predict the spectrum for both CSPR and CTR as shown on figure~\ref{spctr}. We can see that the intensity of the CTR signal is  lower, but it is concentrated in a small solid angle. For CSPR the signal intensity depends on the beam-grating separation.
-
-
-\section{Conclusion}
-We have studied both CSPR and CTR and studied how to optimize the experimental parameters. Using the CLIO parameters we expect a signal (in the range 0.03-3 THz [ 0.1 - 10 mm]) of \SI{8.37e-7}{J} for CSPR and \SI{7.35e-08}{J} for CTR.\par
 
 %\columnbreak