Skip to main content
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2019 Oct 1;9:14061. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-50401-y

Enhanced relativistic-electron beam collimation using two consecutive laser pulses

Sophia Malko 1,2,, Xavier Vaisseau 1, Frederic Perez 3, Dimitri Batani 4, Alessandro Curcio 5, Michael Ehret 4,6, Javier Honrubia 7, Katarzyna Jakubowska 8, Alessio Morace 9, João Jorge Santos 4, Luca Volpe 1,10
PMCID: PMC6773764  PMID: 31575932

Abstract

The double laser pulse approach to relativistic electron beam (REB) collimation in solid targets has been investigated at the LULI-ELFIE facility. In this scheme two collinear laser pulses are focused onto a solid target with a given intensity ratio and time delay to generate REBs. The magnetic field generated by the first laser-driven REB is used to guide the REB generated by a second delayed laser pulse. We show how electron beam collimation can be controlled by properly adjusting the ratio of focus size and the delay time between the two pulses. We found that the maximum of electron beam collimation is clearly dependent on the laser focal spot size ratio and related to the magnetic field dynamics. Cu-Kα and CTR imaging diagnostics were implemented to evaluate the collimation effects on the respectively low energy (≤100 keV) and high energy (≥MeV) components of the REB.

Subject terms: Laser-produced plasmas, Imaging techniques

Introduction

The study of the transport of relativistic laser-driven electrons is a subject of interest for many applications including proton-ion acceleration15, fast ignition approach to inertial confinement fusion (ICF)69, astrophysics applications10, isohoric heating of matter1114 as well as high brilliance and compact laser-based x-ray sources15,16. Reducing electron beam divergence17 as well as optimizing electron beam transport in plasmas is crucial for several important application: i) In proton acceleration induced by laser it has been proved that a transversal confinement of the electron beam increases the maximum energy of the proton beam; ii) In the fast ignition approach to ICF electron beam collimation is crucial for the success of the scheme. Previous investigations have shown that the dynamics of electron beams propagation in plasmas is mainly affected by: i) resistivity effects13,1825 on the electron stopping power, which become important at relativistic intensities (IL1018W.cm2) and reduce the final penetration length of the electron beam; ii) collisionless Weibel instabilities which start to grow and become very important for laser intensities IL>1019W.cm2, at the level of the plasma skin depth, generating micro magnetic fields that strongly contribute to increase the initial electron divergence26. Different strategies to control REB propagation in solid matter have been proposed. They rely on the use of ~kT magnetic fields, which can be externally generated by coils27,28 or self generated29, either by artificial resistivity gradients3034 or by exploiting the intrinsically high resistivity of a material35. One of the schemes by using self-generated magnetic fields was proposed by A. Robinson et al.36,37. In this scheme two collinear laser pulses (1 and 2) with a given intensity ratio I2/I110 separated by a delay (Δt=t2t1) are used to generate fast electron beams. The electron beam produced by the first, less intense, laser pulse generates a resistive azimuthal magnetic field (seed magnetic field) which is used to guide the main electron population generated by the second beam. This scheme was experimentally investigated by Scott et al.38 who have shown the existence of an optimum delay between the laser pulses of the order of the laser pulse duration (Δtτ), at which a maximum electron beam collimation is reached. The existence of this optimum can be explained by considering the growth rate and then the dynamics of the spatial diffusion of the seed magnetic field, in connection with the arrival time of the main electron beam. However the reported study38 was focused only on the influence of the delay time between the laser pulses while other relevant parameters, namely laser intensity and laser focal spot size ratio, were kept constant. The condition for collimation suggested by Robinson et al.36 (by assuming the Larmor radius of the second beam smaller than the radial extension of the seed magnetic field) written in terms of the laser focal spots ratio ϕ1>ϕ2 was satisfied.

Numerical investigations have been performed to better understand the mechanism39. From this study a clearer picture of the physical mechanism is obtained suggesting the relevant role of the ratio between the REB sizes. Following such interpretation we have performed an experimental campaign in which we used two independent focusing parabolic mirrors, allowing to vary the ratio ϕ1/ϕ2 between the two laser focal spots, therefore controlling the ratio between the radius of the azimuthal magnetic field created by the first beam R1 and the radius of the second electron beam R2. In addition to the Cu-Kα emission diagnostic used in38 and mainly sensitive to the more numerous electrons in the 10–100 keV range, we implemented measurement of coherent transition radiation (CTR) to evaluate the collimation effect on higher energy electrons (1 MeV)40. The performed experimental study with various laser parameters allowed us to make a detailed characterization of the collimation efficiency.

Results

Experimental results

Figure 1(a) presents the evolution of the Cu-Kα spot size as a function of delay time between the two laser pulses for different ratios ϕ1/ϕ2. An optimum delay, corresponding to a maximum collimation of the fast electron beams, was measured for each focal spot ratio. Both Cu-Kα and CTR diagnostics confirm that the collimation of the main electron beam occurs at delays Δt=3,2.5,2ps respectively for the run with focal spot ratios ϕ1/ϕ2=2.5,2.8,3 [Fig. 1(b)]. The higher the ratio ϕ1/ϕ2, the shorter is the delay at which an optimum collimation occurred. Examples of experimental images are shown in Fig. 2(a) for ϕ1/ϕ2=2.5, while Fig. 2(b) reports the size as measured by the two diagnostics on the same graph [same data as Fig. 2(a)]. Compared to the Kα signals the absolute smaller size of CTR signal confirms that this emission is due to the high energy component of electron beam, which has a smaller angular spread. Efficient electron beam collimation can be represented by introducing the compression parameter C defined as the ratio between the Cu-Kα peak intensity and the Cu-Kα spot FWHM39. A compression of the beam is indeed achieved when a reduction of the electron beam size is accompanied by an increase of the peak intensity of the signal: a larger value of C corresponds to a more collimated electron beam. The maximum compression corresponds to the maximum value of Cu-Kα emission at the delay time of 3 ps where the electron beam area is decreased by a factor of 0.5 and the Cu-Kα intensity is increased by a factor of 1.37 [Fig. 4]. This suggests that more than 70% of hot electrons are collimated in the process. The CTR signal shows also a reduction of the beam size by a fairly comparable factor ~0.6 although there is not a clear increase of the detected signal yield. This seems to suggest a lower effect of the magnetic field on the high energy electron beam component which results both because of the larger difference between the radial extent of the magnetic field and the spatial size of the high energy component in the beam, and the smaller deviation of higher energy electrons.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Evolution of the diameter of the emission area on target rear side of (a) Cu-Kα fluorescence and (b) CTR, as a function of the delay between the two laser pulses for different focal spot ratios: ϕ1/ϕ2=2.5 (red circles), ϕ1/ϕ2=2.8 (green triangles), ϕ1/ϕ2=3 (black squares). The dashed curves are guides for the eyes. Different vertical scales are used in (a) and (b).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Data obtained for a focal spot ratio ϕ1/ϕ2=2.5. (a) Set of typical Cu-Kα (top) and CTR (bottom) images obtained at different delays Δt = 0 ps (left), 3 ps (middle) and 5 ps (right). (b) Comparison of Cu-Kα (red circles) and of CTR (blue circles) emission spot sizes. The red crosses show the results of the simulated Cu-Kα emission, reproducing the delay at which optimal collimation occurs.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Evolution of the Cu-Kα peak intensity (black circles), Cu-Kα emission spot size (grey circles) and compression factor C (red triangles), normalized to the values at Δt = 0 ps for the run with the focal spot ratio ϕ1/ϕ2=2.5 (a), ϕ1/ϕ2=2.8 (b), ϕ1/ϕ2=3 (c).

Simulations

In order to support our physical interpretation of the experimental results of fast electron collimation, we performed a set of numerical simulations covering all the involved time scales. The plasma expansion at the target front surface was estimated using the 1D hydro code MULTI41 while the laser-driven electron source was characterized using the 2D Particle-in-Cell (PIC) code SMILEI42. The transport of fast electrons through the target was simulated over the time t=3ps+Δt using a 3D hybrid-PIC code43,44, reproducing the experimental configuration for the run with a laser focal spot ratio ϕ1/ϕ2=2.5.

Results of hybrid simulations are compared with the experiment in terms of Cu-Kα emission spot sizes. As shown in Fig. 2(b) both the experimental and the synthetic Cu-Kα spot size exhibit a two times decrease at optimum delay when compared to a simultaneous shot of the two laser beams (Δt=0). The minimum spot size is also reached with a delay time ~3 ps, when the amplitude of magnetic field reached its maximum Bmax~200 T [Fig. 3(a)]. It is worth to note that the discrepancy in terms of size between the simulated and the experimental spots might be related to an underestimation of the fast electron beam divergence and the fast electron beam diameter.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Results of fast electron transport simulations for the focal spot ratio ϕ1/ϕ2=2.5 and and for a delay time between the two laser pulses Δt = 3 ps. (a) Evolution of the azimuthal magnetic field Y component and (b) of the fast electron density extracted at t = 0.6 ps, 3 ps (before main pulse injection) and at t = 3.6 ps, 5.8 ps (after main pulse injection).

Discussion

Two main effects were observed when varying the laser focal spot ratio of the laser pulses: a variation of the maximum compression coefficient and a shift of the optimum delay time. Such tendencies are explained by the dynamics of the self-generated magnetic fields governed by the diffusion equation which combines the generalized Ohm’s law45,46 with Maxwell-Faraday’s law:

Bt=η×jb+(η)×jb+ημ02B1μ0(η)×B 1

with the plasma resistivity η, the magnetic field B and the fast electron current density jb. The terms in the right-hand-side of Eq. 1 are responsible for the magnetic field generation and evolution. The maximum amplitude Bmax, the rise and diffusion times are mainly dependent on the laser pulse duration, intensity and focal spot size via the target resistivity evolution and the fast electron beam current density. Applying this equation to our case, we can explain the magnetic field dynamics and its influence on the observed electron beam collimation. An increase of the focal spot size of the first laser pulse causes (see Fig. 4):

  1. A reduction of the optimum delay time

  2. An increase of the time window for second electron beam injection

  3. A mitigation of the REB collimation.

The later effect (3), estimated by the compression ratio, is caused by the natural reduction of the maximum amplitude of the magnetic field Bmax because a larger spot implies a reduced laser intensity on target: the Δt scan with ϕ1/ϕ2=3 is the less efficient. The reduction of the optimum delay time between the two laser pulses when the focal spot ratio increased (1) is due to the change in target resistivity following the evolution of the target temperature. With the increase of laser focal spot ϕ1, the injected energy density reduces, therefore the target electron temperature Te decreases and the resistivity η gets larger implying a decrease of the B-field rise time ξ1η. As a consequence the magnetic field reaches Bmax faster, when the REB collimation is observed. As for the optimum time window (2) for the injection of the second electron beam, this appears because the collimation of the REB is caused by a resistive magnetic field presenting a sufficiently long lifetime, the later being directly related to the magnetic field diffusion time, scaling as τdiffR2η [Eq. 1]. As a consequence, the bigger the radial size of the first electron beam, the longer the seed magnetic field lasts, extending the optimum time window for the injection of the main electron population. The existence of the optimum focal spot ratio, when the compression reaches its maximum, is a trade-off between the maximum amplitude of the magnetic field Bmax and its diffusion time. The laser focal spot ratio should lay between 2–2.8, the most evident collimation effect having been observed for a focal spot ratio of 2.5. This is based on the experimental measurements for three focal spot ratio cases and the limitation of the scheme working condition caused by laser pointing issues. It is worth to note that one of the crucial requirements for this experimental campaign is the necessary overlapping of the laser focal spots. Increasing the focal spot of the seed laser pulse guarantees a better spatial overlapping of the two laser focal spots. A focal spot ratio smaller than 2 would have decreased the probability of overlapping the focal spots from one shot to another.

In summary, in the present experiment, we extensively studied the double pulse approach to the collimating of relativistic electron beams produced in high-intensity laser-plasma interactions. By changing the ratio between the focal spots of the two lasers ϕ1/ϕ2 and the injection time Δt, we observed a clear signature of collimation, validating the theory presented in36,39. Two complementary diagnostic techniques have been implemented, which mainly show the respective behaviour of very fast vs. less fast hot electrons. The results are essentially in agreement. In particular, both from experimental results and from simulations, we have shown that for each value of ϕ1/ϕ2 there is an optimal injection time Δt, which, in agreement with expectations, increases when ϕ1/ϕ2 is decreased. We also found that about 70% of hot electrons can be collimated by this mechanism. In conclusion, the double pulse technique appears to be an easy and controllable way to limit the divergence of fast electrons and improve energy transport deep into the target. This result opens interesting perspectives for a large variety of applications including the fast ignition approach to inertial confinement fusion and the optimisation of laser-driven particle sources.

Methods

Experimental set-up and diagnostics

The experiment was performed at the LULI-ELFIE facility (Ecole Polytechnique, France). We used a dual beam configuration, with two λ = 1.06 μm, τ = 470 fs full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) pulses, containing 13 ± 2 J of energy each and focused symmetrically at ± 28.5° incidences with respect to the target normal [Fig. 5]. The use of two different off-axis parabolic mirrors, one for each beam, allowed to vary the focal spot size of the first pulse, generating the seed magnetic field, from ϕ1=20μm to 30 μm FWHM while keeping constant the focal spot of the second pulse (ϕ2=8μm FWHM). These yielded intensities of ~1018 W.cm−2 and 1 × 1019 W.cm−2, respectively. The 3 × 3 mm2 planar double-layer targets were composed of Al[50 μm] − Cu[5 μm], with the Al layer facing the two laser pulses. The two pulses, originating from the same oscillator, were temporally synchronized using interferometry techniques. The delay Δt between the laser pulses was varied between 0 ps and 5 ps, with a precision of 100 fs. Cu-Kα x-ray emission (ω8keV) produced by electrons passing through the copper tracer was imaged onto a FUJI image plate using a spherically bent quartz 22–43 crystal16, with a radius of curvature of 25 mm, looking at 37.5° with respect to the target normal. Coherent transition radiation at twice the laser frequency47 produced by relativistic electrons of energies 1 MeV was recorded using a Gated Optical Imager (GOI) looking at the target rear surface at 28.5° with respect to the target normal and with an acquisition time of 200 ps, limiting the contribution to the signal of delayed Planckian thermal radiation.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Experimental setup.

Numerical simulations

As stated above in order to support our physical interpretation of the experimental results of fast electron collimation, we performed a set of numerical simulations. The pre-plasma formation by the interaction of the seed laser pulse with the front side aluminium layer was evaluated using the hydrodynamic code MULTI41 in 1D. The plasma electron density profile showed an approximately exponential profile which could be fitted as ne(x)e32x, where x[μm] is the longitudinal coordinate. The parameters of the electron source produced by the interaction of the main laser pulse with a 50 μm thick aluminium layer were evaluated via Particle-in-Cell (PIC) simulations in 2D using the SMILEI code42. We considered a 470 fs FWHM Gaussian pulse with 1019 W.cm−2 peak intensity. The extracted REB energy distribution was averaged over the 1.5 ps duration of the simulation and is well described in the 10 keV ≤ E ≤ 200 MeV energy range by the following analytical expression: f(E)=exp(ETb)+(TcE)×[(γ01)mec2E]aexp(ETsh). The fitting parameters are: Tb=30.3keV, Tsh=10MeV, Tc=1MeV, γ0=1.0075, a=1.6. The transport of fast electrons into the target was simulated in 3D with a hybrid-PIC code43,44 using the aforementioned electron distribution as input to reproduces the experimental configuration for the run with a laser focal spot ratio ϕ1/ϕ2=2.5 over the time t=3ps+Δt. The laser-to-fast-electrons conversion efficiency was set to 25% according to48. The electric resistivity is calculated using the Eidmann-Chimier model49,50. The fast electron angular distribution is fitted by the function f(θ,r,E)exp[(θθrΔθ)2], where Δθ is the dispersion angle at the source and θr = arctan[tan(γ)r/r0] is the mean radial angle with respect to the laser propagation axis with r0 = 13.5 μm. The angles were estimated according to17 as Δθ = 45° and γ = 35° for the first electron beam, and 55° and 45° for the second electron source respectively.

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has received funding from LASERLAB-EUROPE (grant agreement no. 654148, European UnionAos Horizon 2020 research and innovation program). This experiment was carried out within the framework of the Investments for the future program IdEx Bordeaux LAPHIA (No. ANR-10-IDEX-03-02). Part of the used diagnostic equipment was funded by the French National Agency for Research (ANR) and the competitiveness cluster Alpha-Route des Lasers, project No. TERRE ANR-2011-BS04-014. Simulation work has been partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (grant No. ENE2014-54960-R) and used HPC resources and technical assistance provided by Tirant and CeSViMa centers of the Spanish Supercomputing Network. The work was also supported by the Competitiveness Program of NRNU MEPhI, Russia. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the LULI ELFIE staff during the experimental campaign.

Author Contributions

L. Volpe conceived and designed the experiment in collaboration with S. Malko, X. Vaisseau, J. J. Santos and A. Morace. S. Malko, X. Vaisseau and J. J. Santos designed and conducted the experiment with L. Volpe, M. Ehret, F. Perez, A. Curcio and K. Jakubowska. S. Malko and X. Vaisseau analyzed the experimental results with F. Perez, A. Curcio and M. Ehret. Numerical simulations have been performed by S. Malko, X. Vaisseau and F. Perez supported by J. Honrubia. S. Malko and X. Vaisseau wrote the paper supported by L. Volpe, J. J. Santos and D. Batani. All the authors finally reviewed the manuscript.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Snavely RA, et al. Intense high-energy proton beams from petawatt-laser irradiation of solids. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2000;85:2945–2948. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.2945. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Flacco A, et al. Dependence on pulse duration and foil thickness in high-contrast-laser proton acceleration. Phys. Rev. E. 2010;81:036405. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.81.036405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Brenner CM, et al. High energy conversion efficiency in laser-proton acceleration by controlling laser-energy deposition onto thin foil targets. Applied Physics Letters. 2014;104:081123. doi: 10.1063/1.4865812. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Batani D, Boutoux G, Burgy F, Jakubowska K, Ducret JE. Proton acceleration measurements using fs laser irradiation of foils in the target normal sheath acceleration regime. Physics of Plasmas. 2018;25:054506. doi: 10.1063/1.5029854. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Roth M, et al. Energetic ions generated by laser pulses: A detailed study on target properties. Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams. 2002;5:061301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.5.061301. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Tabak M, et al. Ignition and high gain with ultrapowerful lasers*. Physics of Plasmas. 1994;1:1626–1634. doi: 10.1063/1.870664. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Norreys P, et al. Fast electron energy transport in solid density and compressed plasma. Nuclear Fusion. 2014;54:054004. doi: 10.1088/0029-5515/54/5/054004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Freeman RR, Batani D, Baton S, Key M, Stephens R. The generation and transport of large currents in dense materials: The physics of electron transport relative to fast ignition. Fusion Science and Technology. 2006;49:297–315. doi: 10.13182/FST06-A1150. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Macchi A, et al. Fundamental issues in fast ignition physics: from relativistic electron generation to proton driven ignition. Nuclear Fusion. 2003;43:362–368. doi: 10.1088/0029-5515/43/5/309. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fiuza F, Fonseca RA, Tonge J, Mori WB, Silva LO. Weibel-instability-mediated collisionless shocks in the laboratory with ultraintense lasers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012;108:235004. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.235004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Nishimura H, et al. Energy transport and isochoric heating of a low-z, reduced-mass target irradiated with a high intensity laser pulse. Physics of Plasmas. 2011;18:022702. doi: 10.1063/1.3551591. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Schönlein A, et al. Generation and characterization of warm dense matter isochorically heated by laser-induced relativistic electrons in a wire target. EPL. 2016;114:45002. doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/114/45002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Santos JJ, et al. Isochoric heating and strong blast wave formation driven by fast electrons in solid-density targets. New Journal of Physics. 2017;19:103005. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/aa806b. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Perez F, et al. Enhanced isochoric heating from fast electrons produced by high-contrast, relativistic-intensity laser pulses. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2010;104:085001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.085001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Antonelli L, et al. Laser-driven shock waves studied by x-ray radiography. Phys. Rev. E. 2017;95:063205. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.95.063205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Morace A, et al. Development of x-ray radiography for high energy density physics. Physics of Plasmas. 2014;21:102712. doi: 10.1063/1.4900867. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Green JS, et al. Effect of laser intensity on fast-electron-beam divergence in solid-density plasmas [phys. rev. lett. 100, 015003 (2008)] Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008;100:039902. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.039902. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Volpe L, Batani D, Morace A, Santos JJ. Collisional and collective effects in two dimensional model for fast-electron transport in refluxing regime. Physics of Plasmas. 2013;20:013104. doi: 10.1063/1.4771586. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Volpe L, et al. Propagation of a short-pulse laser-driven electron beam in matter. Physics of Plasmas. 2013;20:033105. doi: 10.1063/1.4793453. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Vauzour B, et al. Relativistic high-current electron-beam stopping-power characterization in solids and plasmas: Collisional versus resistive effects. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012;109:255002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.255002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Santos JJ, et al. Fast-electron transport and induced heating in aluminum foils. Physics of Plasmas. 2007;14:103107. doi: 10.1063/1.2790893. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Vaisseau X, et al. Enhanced relativistic-electron-beam energy loss in warm dense aluminum. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2015;114:095004. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.095004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pisani F, et al. Experimental evidence of electric inhibition in fast electron penetration and of electric-field-limited fast electron transport in dense matter. Phys. Rev. E. 2000;62:R5927–R5930. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.62.R5927. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Batani D, et al. Explanations for the observed increase in fast electron penetration in laser shock compressed materials. Phys. Rev. E. 2000;61:5725–5733. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.61.5725. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Batani D, et al. Inhibition in the propagation of fast electrons in plastic foams by resistive electric fields. Phys. Rev. E. 2002;65:066409. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.65.066409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Debayle A, Honrubia J, D’Humières E, Tikhonchuk V. Characterization of laser-produced fast electron sources for fast ignition. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion. 2010;52:124024. doi: 10.1088/0741-3335/52/12/124024. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Santos J J, Bailly-Grandvaux M, Giuffrida L, Forestier-Colleoni P, Fujioka S, Zhang Z, Korneev P, Bouillaud R, Dorard S, Batani D, Chevrot M, Cross J E, Crowston R, Dubois J-L, Gazave J, Gregori G, d’Humières E, Hulin S, Ishihara K, Kojima S, Loyez E, Marquès J-R, Morace A, Nicolaï P, Peyrusse O, Poyé A, Raffestin D, Ribolzi J, Roth M, Schaumann G, Serres F, Tikhonchuk V T, Vacar P, Woolsey N. Laser-driven platform for generation and characterization of strong quasi-static magnetic fields. New Journal of Physics. 2015;17(8):083051. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/17/8/083051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bailly-Grandvaux, M. et al. Guiding of relativistic electron beams in dense matter by laser-driven magnetostatic fields. Nature Communications9, 10.1038/s41467-017-02641-7 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 29.Bell AR, Kingham RJ. Resistive collimation of electron beams in laser-produced plasmas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2003;91:035003. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.035003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kar S, et al. Guiding of relativistic electron beams in solid targets by resistively controlled magnetic fields. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2009;102:055001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.055001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Schmitz, H., Lloyd, R. & Evans, R. G. Collisional particle-in-cell modelling of the generation and control of relativistic electron beams produced by ultra-intense laser pulses. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion54, 085016, http://stacks.iop.org/0741-3335/54/i=8/a=085016 (2012).
  • 32.Debayle A, Gremillet L, Honrubia JJ, d’Humières E. Reduction of the fast electron angular dispersion by means of varying-resistivity structured targets. Physics of Plasmas. 2013;20:013109. doi: 10.1063/1.4789451. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Santos J, et al. Supra-thermal electron beam stopping power and guiding in dense plasmas. Journal of Plasma Physics. 2013;79:429–435. doi: 10.1017/S0022377813000305. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Pérez F, et al. Magnetically guided fast electrons in cylindrically compressed matter. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2011;107:065004. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.065004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Vaisseau X, et al. Collimated propagation of fast electron beams accelerated by high-contrast laser pulses in highly resistive shocked carbon. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2017;118:205001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.205001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Robinson APL, Sherlock M, Norreys PA. Artificial collimation of fast-electron beams with two laser pulses. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008;100:025002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.025002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Robinson A.P.L., Strozzi D.J., Davies J.R., Gremillet L., Honrubia J.J., Johzaki T., Kingham R.J., Sherlock M., Solodov A.A. Theory of fast electron transport for fast ignition. Nuclear Fusion. 2014;54(5):054003. doi: 10.1088/0029-5515/54/5/054003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Scott RHH, et al. Controlling fast-electron-beam divergence using two laser pulses. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012;109:015001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.015001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Volpe L, et al. Controlling the fast electron divergence in a solid target with multiple laser pulses. Phys. Rev. E. 2014;90:063108. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.90.063108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Baton SD, et al. Evidence of ultrashort electron bunches in laser-plasma interactions at relativistic intensities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2003;91:105001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.105001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ramis, R., Schmalz, R. & Meyer-Ter-Vehn, J. Multi — a computer code for one-dimensional multigroup radiation hydrodynamics. Computer Physics Communications49, 475–505, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010465588900082 (1988).
  • 42.Derouillat J., Beck A., Pérez F., Vinci T., Chiaramello M., Grassi A., Flé M., Bouchard G., Plotnikov I., Aunai N., Dargent J., Riconda C., Grech M. Smilei : A collaborative, open-source, multi-purpose particle-in-cell code for plasma simulation. Computer Physics Communications. 2018;222:351–373. doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2017.09.024. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Honrubia JJ, Alfonsin C, Alonso L, Perez B, Cerrada JA. Simulations of heating of solid targets by fast electrons. Laser and Particle Beams. 2006;24:217–222. doi: 10.1017/S0263034606060319. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Honrubia, J. J. & ter Vehn, J. M. Fast ignition of fusion targets by laser-driven electrons. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion51, 014008, http://stacks.iop.org/0741-3335/51/i=1/a=014008 (2009).
  • 45.Braginski A. Magnetic after-effects in iron-rich ferrites containing vacancies. Physica status solidi (b) 1965;11:603–616. doi: 10.1002/pssb.19650110212. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Nicola P, et al. Effect of the plasma-generated magnetic field on relativistic electron transport. Phys. Rev. E. 2011;84:016402. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.84.016402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Santos JJ, et al. Fast electron transport in ultraintense laser pulse interaction with solid targets by rear-side self-radiation diagnostics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002;89:025001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.025001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Solodov AA, Betti R. Stopping power and range of energetic electrons in dense plasmas of fast-ignition fusion targets. Physics of Plasmas. 2008;15:042707. doi: 10.1063/1.2903890. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Chimier B, Tikhonchuk VT, Hallo L. Heating model for metals irradiated by a subpicosecond laser pulse. Phys. Rev. B. 2007;75:195124. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.75.195124. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Eidmann K, Meyer-ter Vehn J, Schlegel T, Hüller S. Hydrodynamic simulation of subpicosecond laser interaction with solid-density matter. Phys. Rev. E. 2000;62:1202–1214. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.62.1202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES