RB (re p. 5): How do you get 0.2 mm mrad thermal emittance with 32 A?
YK: I am using a k value of 0.4 eV, you probably use a larger value.
MP (re p. 5): At 120 MV/m you will need more power, more like 30-31 MW!
RB: In the original design the energy chirp was chosen such that the remaining chirp exactly matches the wakefields of the 6 GeV linac - did you consider this in your solution?
YK: In the case of the rf gun, it is quite easy to control the chirp in the downstream region (easier than for the pulser solution).
RB (re p. 19): The diagnistics should be specified to work also for 0.1 emittance, since this range still is the utlimate aim of the project!
RB (re p. 21): Would the growth in projected emittance at the end go away with a shorter pulse form?
YK: It looks like this is a combined effect from space charge, CSR, but also wake fields.
RI (re p. 28): Does the optics of the second half of the injector now depend on the source or not?
YK: The positions of the devices are the same, but the settings may change!
RB: One should keep in mind that the beta function for the pulser solution followed from a certain choice, namely to keep the rho parameter above 1, so we can use solenoids for focussing.
RI: The quadrupole positions follow from an optimization made with the CTF3 gun - would these positions be different if you had used the pulser in your opimization?
YK: The question is irrelevant. The main difference between the two solutions is the initial beta/alpha function in the third accelerator structure, the rest is almost the same. The optics can easily be rematched in the case of the pulser.
MP wonders if CSR is affecting the matching problem.