Choosing Rayleigh Length of Input Radiation to an Undulator

Brodysseus
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
This isn't a homework question but the professor asked us why someone would choose to set the Rayleigh length of input radiation into an undulator to be the length of the undulator, instead of setting it to be half the undulator's length like normal. The best reason I could come up with is that they didn't want the radiation energy spread to be very large, but that seems too simplistic.

This is for a class on synchrotron radiation and free electron lasers, and we were talking about the gain in electromagnetic energy.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Setting the Rayleigh length of input radiation to the same length as the undulator will maximize the gain in electromagnetic energy, since the input radiation will be focused on one spot and not spread out over a large area. This will also provide a more stable output pulse, since the radiation will not have time to diverge due to the short distance between the input radiation and the undulator. Additionally, having the Rayleigh length set to the undulator's length will reduce the amount of time required to reach the maximum gain since the input radiation will not have to travel any further than necessary.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...

Similar threads

Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
152
Views
9K
Replies
42
Views
6K
Back
Top