Talk:Plasma acceleration

Older content

The basic concepts of plasma acceleration and its possibilities were originally conceived by Toshiki Tajima and Prof. John M. Dawson of UCLA in 1979

How about this article http://cds.cern.ch/record/1241564 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.67.20.220 (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be 10 GV/m instead of 10 TeV/m. - Rasmus Ischebeck

This sentence didn't make sense to begin with: "It is hoped that a compact particle accelerator can be created based on plasma acceleration techniques or accelerators for much higher energy can be built, if long accelerators are realizable with an accelerating field of 10 GV/m.". But GV, really? Shouldn't that be GeV? Rl 07:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, it's referring to the field, which has a magnitude measured in volts per meter. a single electron accelerated across a gradient of X V/m will gain an energy of X eV/m, but gigavolts is the correct unit as this sentence is written. (also, hi rasmus!) Natelipkowitz 02:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rl 06:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question: can this technique replace "ordinary" particle accelerators, like the Fermilab or CERN? I assume the answer is no, at least for now, or else it would have been done. So let me rephrase the question: is it possible that plasma accelerators will some day replace circular and/or linear accelerators? There's some discussion at the main Particle Accelerator page, but I would think there could be more discussion here (unless it's just unknown at present--but even that would be good to say here, IMHO). If not, is it because it's not possible in principle to get to those high energies, or because the beam that would be produced wouldn't be coherent enough? Mcswell 03:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand it (being a humble grad student working on FACET at SLAC), these techniques are nowhere near ready for deployment on that scale. A lot of research has to be done into various problems such as emittance preservation, head erosion, etc. There have been a few papers discussing what a cascading PWFA machine might look like and how you might achieve a 500 GeV beam, but a full proposal is not on the immediate horizon. This isn't because the concept is flawed, it just needs more development. Joel Frederico (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

The article Surfatron is orphaned and has little content, so i proposed merging its facility list into this article, of course only if no one objects within two weeks. BR84 (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text and/or other creative content from Surfatron was copied or moved into Plasma acceleration with [permanent diff this edit]. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

BR84 (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proton driven plasma wakefield acceleration?

PDPWFA is one of the candidates for a post-LHC accelerator, and isn't mentioned yet in the article. I don't really know enough about the innards of this technology to write a section on it. 109.151.126.219 (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a small two-sentence paragraph at the start to introduce the AWAKE experiment at CERN. It is only about half a year away from start-up and is being assembled at the moment. I work on this experiment, but mainly with simulations. I'll try to keep the page updated with any results. The next stage after LHC is in any case HL-LHC. PWFA is a lot further into the future if it is even viable for high luminosity experiments. Jadzia626 (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added proton bunch as an option for PWFA in the Comparison with RF acceleration section since there wasn't a specific mention of PDPWFA. I'm not sure if the distinction is important enough that these should be split into two bullet points. Jadzia626 (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]