Talk:Undulator

Radio Undularor

The term is also encountered in high-speed morse operation, eg a "Printing Undularor".

See "The Secret Wireless War" by Geoffrey Pidgeon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.207.18.233 (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Use

Article is a bit short on information, I think it should mention what the device is used for, and why. --GalFisk 09:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Distinction between undulator and wiggler

I thing the distinction between both should be k>1 and k≤1 (indstead of k≫1 and k≪1) because at k=1 the radiation cones start overlaying. Anyway, in the current description, what would a device with k≈1 be called? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.34.3.113 (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The main distinction criterion is the spectrum, but depends on the spectral range of interest. If looking at very high harmonics only, all these devices look like wigglers. If one is interested in the fundamental only and looking only at a very narrow frequency range, all devices look like an undulator.

However, typically one is interested in a range of a few harmonics (often starting with the fundamental). The distinction is often made at $K$ values between 1 and 5, depending on the author. Therefore using $\ll$ and $\gg$ is the most correct one. For reference, the European XFEL SASE1/2 undulators have a tuning range of $K\simeq 1.65-3.9$ and SASE3 undulators of $K\simeq 4-9$, but nobody would call them wigglers. 2001:638:700:1005:0:0:1:30 (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

diagram incorrect?

The undulator picture does not follow the right hand rule for Lorentz force, assuming the arrows indicate B field direction and the particle beam is composed of electrons (as stated in the caption). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.82.193.71 (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the same too. The particle deflection is shown opposite to what is expected from Lorentz force. Can someone verify it and correct if needed? 174.16.196.10 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)