1 Data Analysis of LLRF Measurements at FLASH Shilun Pei and Chris Adolphsen Nov. 16 – Nov. 20, 2008.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Tom Powers Practical Aspects of SRF Cavity Testing and Operations SRF Workshop 2011 Tutorial Session.
Advertisements

of LFD Compensation Study S1 Global Cryomodule
Breakdown Rate Dependence on Gradient and Pulse Heating in Single Cell Cavities and TD18 Faya Wang, Chris Nantista and Chris Adolphsen May 1, 2010.
Overview of SMTF RF Systems Brian Chase. Overview Scope of RF Systems RF & LLRF Collaboration LLRF Specifications for SMTF Progress So Far Status of progress.
J. Branlard ALCPG11 – March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Results from 9mA studies on achieving flat gradients with beam loading P K |Q L studies at FLASH.
Lorentz force detuning measurements on the CEA cavity
Stephen Molloy RF Group ESS Accelerator Division
Lutz Lilje DESY -MPY- XFEL Tuner Lorentz Force Detuning System Setup New Saclay design.
PI laser jitter measurements Data taken on 11 th April 2013.
Effects of the cryogenics operational conditions on the mechanical stability of the FLASH linac modules Ramila Amirikas, Alessandro Bertolini, Jürgen Eschke,
1 Improved Subjective Weighting Function ANSI C63.19 Working Group Submitted by Stephen Julstrom for October 2, 2007.
1 9 mA study at FLASH on Sep., 2012 Shin MICHIZONO (KEK) LCWS12(Sep.24) Shin MICHIZONO Outline I.Achievement before Sep.2012 II.Study items for ILC III.
E. KAKO (KEK) 2010' Sept. 10 KEK Global Design Effort 1 Lorentz Force Detuning Eiji Kako (KEK, Japan)
Tests with JT0623 & JT0947 at Indiana University Nagoya PMT database test results for JT0623 at 3220V: This tube has somewhat higher than usual gain. 5×10.
Quad-to-quad correlated motion in FLASH Ramila Amirikas, Alessandro Bertolini DESY Hamburg XFEL beam dynamics meeting, February 25 st 2008.
1 Results from the 'S1-Global' cryomodule tests at KEK (8-cav. and DRFS operation) Shin MICHIZONO (KEK) LOLB-2 (June, 2011) Outline I. 8-cavity installation.
XFEL The European X-Ray Laser Project X-Ray Free-Electron Laser Lutz Lilje, DESY, TILC08 Tests with the Fast Frequency Tuners in the Saclay-I design Lutz.
Signals CY2G2/SE2A2 Information Theory and Signals Aims: To discuss further concepts in information theory and to introduce signal theory. Outcomes:
1 LLRF Pre-readiness review (26th May, 2009) 27/10/2015 LLRF performance and its limitation based on KEK's experiments Shin Michizono (KEK) KEK’s LLRF.
LLRF ILC GDE Meeting Feb.6,2007 Shin Michizono LLRF - Stability requirements and proposed llrf system - Typical rf perturbations - Achieved stability at.
Clustered Surface RF Production Scheme Chris Adolphsen Chris Nantista SLAC.
1 FNAL SCRF meeting 31/10/2015 Comments from LLRF Shin Michizono (KEK) Brian Chase (FNAL) Stefan Simrock (DESY) LLRF performance under large dead time.
Recent LFD Control Results from FNAL Yuriy Pischalnikov Warren Schappert TTF/FLASH 9mA Meeting on Cavity Gradient Flatness June 01, 2010.
1Matthias LiepeAugust 2, 2007 LLRF for the ERL Matthias Liepe.
John Carwardine 5 th June 2012 Developing a program for 9mA studies shifts in Sept 2012.
Study of absorber effectiveness in ILC cavities K. Bane, C. Nantista, C. Adolphsen 12 October 2010.
Marc Ross Nick Walker Akira Yamamoto ‘Overhead and Margin’ – an attempt to set standard terminology 10 Sept 2010 Overhead and Margin 1.
1 SPL Collaboration Meeting dec 08 - WG1 Introduction First SPL Collaboration Meeting Working Group 1 High Power RF Distribution System Introduction.
W. 5th SPL collaboration Meeting CERN, November 25, 20101/18 reported by Wolfgang Hofle CERN BE/RF Update on RF Layout and LLRF activities for.
L-band (1.3 GHz) 5-Cell SW Cavity High Power Test Results Faya Wang, Chris Adolphsen SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
KSC Operation Control of Cavity Gradients Failure Analysis Near and Long Term R&D Effect on Beam Emittance Chris Adolphsen SLAC 9/7/2010 Going Native in.
1 Simulation for power overhead and cavity field estimation Shin Michizono (KEK) Performance (rf power and max. cavity MV/m 24 cav. operation.
ILC FAST TUNER R&D PROGRAM at FNAL Status Report CC2 Piezo Test Preliminary Results Ruben Carcagno (on behalf of the FNAL FAST TUNER Working Group) 4/5/06.
CLIC CTF3: Phase Feed Forward Comparing the effect of the phase feed forward system on beam phase stability with various theoretical predictions. CLIC.
John Carwardine 21 st October 2010 TTF/FLASH 9mA studies: Main studies objectives for January 2011.
Wake Fest 07 - ILC wakefield workshop at SLAC Dec , 2007 Shilun Pei with Chris Adolphsen, Zenghai Li, Karl L. Bane, et al. SLAC, Dec. 12, 2007 TTF.
John Carwardine 20 April 09 Preliminary planning for Aug/Sept studies.
John Carwardine (Argonne) First Baseline Allocation Workshop at KEK September 2010 Experience from FLASH ‘9mA’ experiments Gradient and RF Power Overhead.
GDE 4/Mar/20081 Lorentz Detuning Calculation for the transient response of the resonant cavity Introduction “Two modes” model Method of the.
Signal Analyzers. Introduction In the first 14 chapters we discussed measurement techniques in the time domain, that is, measurement of parameters that.
John Carwardine January 16, 2009 Some results and data from January studies.
1 LLRF requirements/issues for DRFS Shin MICHIZONO (KEK) BAW1 (Sep.8, 2010)
Warren Schappert Yuriy Pischalnikov FNAL SRF2011, Chicago.
Overview of long pulse experiments at NML Nikolay Solyak PXIE Program Review January 16-17, PXIE Review, N.Solyak E.Harms, S. Nagaitsev, B. Chase,
FLASH RF gun developments. Sven Pfeiffer for the LLRF team FEL Seminar Hamburg,
RF phase & amplitude stability of the CTF klystrons By Dubrovskiy Alexey 4 February 20091CLIC beam physics meeting And thanks to Frank Tecker and Daniel.
Matthias Liepe. Matthias Liepe – High loaded Q cavity operation at CU – TTC Topical Meeting on CW-SRF
1 Tuner performance with LLRF control at KEK Shin MICHIZONO (KEK) Dec.07 TTC Beijing (Michizono) S1G (RDR configuration) - Detuning monitor - Tuner control.
RF control and beam acceleration under XFEL conditions Studies of XFEL-type Beam Acceleration at FLASH Julien Branlard, Valeri Ayvazyan, Wojciech Cichalewski,
Overview Step by step procedure to validate the model (slide 1 and 2) Procedure for the Ql / beam loading study (slide 3 and 4)
John Carwardine TDR Writing: FLASH 9mA Experiment.
SRF Cavities Resonance Control. CW mode of operation (FNAL’s experience). Yu. Pischalnikov W. Schappert FNAL TTC CW SRF Meeting, Cornell University, 12June,
Longitudinal dynamic analysis for the 3-8 GeV pulsed LINAC G. Cancelo, B. Chase, Nikolay Solyak, Yury Eidelman, Sergei Nagaitsev, Julien Branlard.
LLRF regulation of CC2 operated at 4˚K Gustavo Cancelo for the AD, TD & CD LLRF team.
Microphonics Discussion For LLRF Design Review Tom Powers 13 June 2016 Not for release outside of JLAB There are several MSWord documents located at: M:\asd\asddata\C100Microphonics2016.
Latest Results on Beam Loaded Experiments at FLASH/TTF Shilun Pei October 27,
Test of the dressed spoke cavity
TTF/FLASH 9mA Experiment Recent Machine Studies Overview
Analysis of optical IPM data
dependence on QL can not longer be seen
SCRF 21-25/Apr/2008 Measurement & Calculation of the Lorentz Detuning for the transient response of the resonant cavity Introduction “Two.
Studies Leader Report: 9mA webex meeting, 15th March 2011
Mechanical setups Lorentz Force Detuning System Setup
Outlook of future studies to reach maximum gradient and current
Cavity resonance control
CW Operation of XFEL Modules
TTF/FLASH 9mA Experiment Recent Machine Studies and Results
NanoBPM Status and Multibunch Mark Slater, Cambridge University
LLRF Comments on the RF cluster and Distributed RF schemes
High gradients in TESLA nine-cell cavities
Presentation transcript:

1 Data Analysis of LLRF Measurements at FLASH Shilun Pei and Chris Adolphsen Nov. 16 – Nov. 20, 2008

2 Motivation and Introduction Motivation: analyze FLASH LLRF real time data (they have an impressive DAQ system), measure the system stability, determine the electronic noise levels, gauge the perturbations to the system, etc. Data was collected on Sep 17, 08 for the following 3 setups: –No beam, FB off, AFF off. –No beam, FB on, AFF off. –No beam, FB on, AFF on. For each set of measurements, the phase and amplitude waveforms (both from the cavity input and pickup couplers) of all cavities in the three cryomodules (ACC4-ACC6) were recorded simultaneously for 100 pulses (one every 3 sec). Data and analyzing scripts can be found at

3 Time Domain Analysis Calibrated the input forward signal at first flattop in MV/m (assuming the cavity probe signal is calibrated correctly). Averaged sets of 4 points to eliminate the 250 kHz LLRF signal leakage effect. Computed the standard deviation at each time step for the 100 pulses in each set of measurements. The standard deviation before the RF turns on is a measure of electronic noise, while the standard deviation when the RF is on includes the rf jitter. To compute the jitter, the noise contribution was subtracted in quadruture. This method was used to analyze the vector sum, input forward and cavity probe signals.

4 Frequency Domain Analysis Two analyses on the cavity probe flat top data with FB+AFF off were done. 1) Compute standard deviation of ‘Pulses’ versus ‘Sample’ time. 2) Compute FFT of the ‘Pulses’ at two fixed sample times (beginning and end of the flattop). This method was only used for probe signal analysis.

5 Outline of Key Findings The FB + AFF controls work well to flatten the vector sum amplitude and phase. Input RF very stable (~ 0.1% level) with FB and AFF off. Jitter on cavity probe signals dominated by variations in pulse-to-pulse cavity detuning profile. –Jitter essentially random pulse to pulse with large cavity to cavity variations (probably uncorrelated). –Jitter does not scale simply with gradient^2 (in MV/m range) – suggests large variations in mechanical stiffness (factor 2 difference).

6 Vector Sum Amplitude Flat top amplitude percentage standard deviation is decreased by factor 2-6. FB can decrease the percentage std, AFF can flat the flat top amplitude. FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam

7 The phase standard deviation is decreased by factor 3-7. FB can decrease the phase std, AFF can flat the flat top phase. Vector Sum Phase FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam

8 For. and Refl. Signals Input signals not calibrated (i.e., amplitude not proportional to gradient), noisy (electronic) and some contain 250 kHz leakage. Significant reflected-to-forward signal coupling (i.e., signals not all the same shape – could not de-convolute them perfectly). Reflected signals indicate significant initial detuning (i.e. reflected amplitude is not zero near end of first flattop) – expect ~ 300 Hz LFD over 1 ms at these gradients. FB+AFF off amplitude very stable pulse to pulse: ~ 0.07% RMS in first flattop and 0.15% RMS in second, which may be larger due to ref-fwd coupling or if jitter dominated by noise on common RF drive (i.e. independent on RF amplitude). FB On, AFF Off: input signal shape change as expected for detuning (i.e. no piezo compensation). FB On, AFF On: Adds strange shape to first flattop and increase jitter.

9 ACC6 Input Mean and Std FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam Fwd-Ref Coupling

10 Refl. RF from Cavities FB Off / AFF Off / No Beam ACC4ACC5ACC6 These plots suggest the cavities are running fairly far off-resonance.

11 Forward Flat in ACC4-6 FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam 2 nd Forward Flat in ACC4-6 1 st Forward Flat in ACC4-6

12 Cavity Probe Signals See smooth pulse-to-pulse variations in probe signal shape that grow along the pulse, suggesting jitter is an integrated effect and not dominated by fast changes in Q (as in dark current and multipacting). Jitter is a few tenths of percent at beginning of flattop and grows up to 4% by end of flattop. Higher gradient cavities have higher jitter in general, but it does not scale simply with gradient^2. Jitter at flattop end correlates well with detuning variation just after RF shut-off, suggesting that variations in pulse-to-pulse detuning is driving the probe signal jitter. Jitter essentially random pulse to pulse with large cavity to cavity variations (uncorrelated between cavities). –See some peaks in FFT spectrum but they do not contribute significantly to jitter.

13 Probe Signals for Flattop ACC6 FB Off / AFF Off / No Beam CAV1 CAV2 CAV3 CAV4 CAV5 CAV6 CAV7 CAV8

14 Probe Signal Std for ACC4-6 FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam Std -vs- Gradient along Flattop for each Cavity

15 Detuning after RF Off FB Off / AFF Off / No Beam

16 Corr. of Jitter Std & Detuning Std

17 ACC6-CAV1 ACC4-CAV3 ACC6-CAV2 ACC4-CAV7 FFTs of Probe Signal Jitter

18 Acknowledgement Thanks John Carwardine (ANL) and Michael Davidsaver (FNAL) for help with the data collection. Thanks colleagues from DESY (Nicholas Walker, Stefan Simrock, Valeri Ayvazyan, Zheqiao Geng etc.), ANL (John, Carwardine), FNAL (Brain Chase) and KEK (Shinichiro Michizono) for many helpful discussions. Thanks!

19 Backup Slides

20 Definition for Forward Signal First flat topSecond flat top Typical input signal for cavities in ACC6 with FB+AFF on (mean for 100 pulses)

21 Note the vertical scale! 1 st Forward Flat in ACC4 FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam Only 1 st flat top fractional jitter is shown below! Noise effect is eliminated roughly! Note the vertical scale!

22 1 st Forward Flat in ACC5 FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam Only 1 st flat top fractional jitter is shown below! Noise effect is eliminated roughly! Note the vertical scale!

23 1 st Forward Flat in ACC6 FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam Only 1 st flat top fractional jitter is shown below! Noise effect is eliminated roughly! Note the vertical scale!

24 1 st Forward Flat in ACC4-6 FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam The fractional jitter on the 1 st input flat top rf amplitude is about % with FB and AFF off. The cause of the large fractional jitter and the strange transient bump on the 1 st input RF flat top with FB+AFF on might be that the AFF is turned on part way up the fill (Brain Chase, FNAL). Suggestions are to ramp up AFF gain in a linear way to reach full gain at flattop. Further development on AFF is still needed. Only 1 st flat top fractional jitter is shown below! Noise effect is eliminated roughly! Note the vertical scale!

25 2 nd Forward Flat in ACC4 FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam Only 2 nd flat top fractional jitter is shown below! Noise effect is eliminated roughly!

26 2 nd Forward Flat in ACC5 FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam Only 2 nd flat top fractional jitter is shown below! Noise effect is eliminated roughly!

27 2 nd Forward Flat in ACC6 FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam Only 2 nd flat top fractional jitter is shown below! Noise effect is eliminated roughly!

28 2 nd Forward Flat in ACC4-6 FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam The fractional jitter on the 2 nd input flat top RF amplitude is about % with FB and AFF off. It seems both FB and AFF will introduce a large fractional jitter for the 2 nd input RF flat top amplitude. The fractional jitter for the 2 nd input flat top with FB+AFF off is about factor 2 of that for the 1 st flat top (the RF amplitude for the 2 nd flat top is roughly half of that for the 1 st flat top). It seems the jitter is dominated by some effect not related with the RF amplitude, which might come from the electronic noise. Only 2 nd flat top fractional jitter is shown below! Noise effect is eliminated roughly!

29 Cavity Probe in ACC4 FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam Only flat top is shown here! Noise effect included!

30 Cavity Probe in ACC5 FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam Only flat top is shown here! Noise effect included!

31 Cavity Probe in ACC6 FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam Only flat top is shown here! Noise effect included!

32 Cavity Probe for ACC4-6 FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam FB+AFF can reduce the cavity probe fractional jitter and flatten the cavity flat top to some extent. Dark current effect may exist (after further study, this possibility was eliminated) or some cavities are very sensitive to the Lorentz detuning variation effect (confirmed by further study). Only flat top is shown here! Noise effect included!

33 Conclusions and Questions The cavity input rf amplitude jitter (FB off, AFF off) appears to be very small (0.05%-0.2%) for the 1 st flat top. Even with noise effect, the jitter is still smaller than 0.6%. The FB + AFF controls work well to flatten the vector sum amplitude and phase, although AFF adds strange bumps to the rf waveform at the 1 st flat top and is the main cause of rf jitter – the AFF might be turned on part way up the fill (Brain Chase, FNAL). Suggestions are to ramp up AFF gain in a linear way to reach full gain at flattop. Further development on AFF is still needed. The fractional jitter for the 2 nd input flat top is about factor 2 of that for the 1 st flat top (which they should be same theoretically). Since the RF amplitude for the 2nd flat top is roughly half of that for the 1st flat top, it seems the jitter is dominated by some effect not related with the RF amplitude, which might come from the electronic noise. The cavity probe signals are particularly interesting as their jitter is much larger (up to 4% with noise) than that of the input rf, and grows along the pulse. Either some of the cavities are very Lorentz detuning sensitive or dark currents are generating the jitter in the higher gradient cavities – this really needs to be understood as it has major implications for XFEL and ILC.

34 Whole Pulse for ACC4 FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam The signal in the red circle is first flat top, that in blue circle is second flat top. Note the vertical scale!

35 Whole Pulse for ACC5 FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam The signal in the red circle is first flat top, that in blue circle is second flat top. Note the vertical scale!

36 Whole Pulse for ACC6 FB Off / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF Off / No BeamFB On / AFF On / No Beam The signal in the red circle is first flat top, that in blue circle is second flat top. Note the vertical scale!

37 1 st Input Forward Flat ACC4ACC5ACC6 The cause of the slight difference of the forward flat top shape for different cavities is that the forward input signal as detected is the sum of forward signal plus the reflected signal times F-R isolation. The isolation may be as low as 20dB on some channels (Stefan Simrock, DESY). HLRF requirements for power coupler isolation need to be discussed. Maybe 35dB is realistic starting point. Normalized to the same average amplitude! FB Off / AFF Off / No Beam

38 2 nd Input Forward Flat ACC4ACC5ACC6 The cause of the slight difference of the forward flat top shape for different cavities is that the forward input signal as detected is the sum of forward signal plus the reflected signal times F-R isolation. The isolation may be as low as 20dB on some channels (Stefan Simrock, DESY). HLRF requirements for power coupler isolation need to be discussed. Maybe 35dB is realistic starting point. Normalized to the same average amplitude! FB Off / AFF Off / No Beam

39 Cavity Probe Abs. Std FB Off / AFF Off / No Beam ACC4ACC5ACC6

40 Cavity Reflected Abs. Mean FB Off / AFF Off / No Beam ACC4ACC5ACC6 These plots suggest the cavities are running fairly far off-resonance!

41 Cavity Reflected Abs. Phase FB Off / AFF Off / No Beam ACC4ACC5ACC6

42 Detuning after RF Off FB Off / AFF Off / No Beam

43 Detuning Variation for RF Off ACC4 FB Off / AFF Off / No Beam CAV1 CAV2 CAV3 CAV4 CAV5 CAV6 CAV7 CAV8 σ=6.9Hz µ=160Hz σ=4.0Hz µ=144Hz σ=3.2Hz µ=162Hzσ=5.4Hz µ=186Hz σ=3.3Hz µ=99Hz σ=3.6Hz µ=73Hz σ=3.5Hz µ=104Hz σ=4.6Hz µ=121Hz

44 Probe Std for RF Off ACC4 FB Off / AFF Off / No Beam

45 Detuning Variation for RF Off ACC5 FB Off / AFF Off / No Beam CAV1 CAV2 CAV3 CAV4 CAV5 CAV6 CAV7 CAV8 σ=11.5Hz µ=217Hz σ=3.6Hz µ=211Hz σ=6.3Hz µ=149Hzσ=3.7Hz µ=189Hz σ=3.8Hz µ=160Hz σ=3.9Hz µ=160Hz σ=3.7Hz µ=114Hzσ=6.2Hz µ=122Hz

46 Probe Std for RF Off ACC5 FB Off / AFF Off / No Beam

47 Detuning Variation for RF Off ACC6 FB Off / AFF Off / No Beam CAV1 CAV2 CAV3 CAV4 CAV5 CAV6 CAV7 CAV8 σ=6.7Hz µ=72Hz σ=7.3Hz µ=30Hz σ=4.8Hz µ=107Hzσ=4.3Hz µ=62Hz σ=32.3Hz µ=177Hz σ=6.1Hz µ=232Hz σ=8.2Hz µ=318Hzσ=11.3Hz µ=197Hz

48 Probe Std for RF Off ACC6 FB Off / AFF Off / No Beam

49 Corr. of Std and Detuning Std

50 Dark Current Investigation ACC4 FB Off / AFF Off / No Beam CAV1 CAV2 CAV3 CAV4 CAV5 CAV6 CAV7 CAV8

51 Dark Current Investigation ACC5 FB Off / AFF Off / No Beam CAV1 CAV2 CAV3 CAV4 CAV5 CAV6 CAV7 CAV8

52 Dark Current Investigation ACC6 FB Off / AFF Off / No Beam CAV1 CAV2 CAV3 CAV4 CAV5 CAV6 CAV7 CAV8

53 ACC4-CAV1 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

54 ACC4-CAV2 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

55 ACC4-CAV3 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

56 ACC4-CAV4 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

57 ACC4-CAV5 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

58 ACC4-CAV6 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

59 ACC4-CAV7 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

60 ACC4-CAV8 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

61 ACC5-CAV1 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

62 ACC5-CAV2 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

63 ACC5-CAV3 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

64 ACC5-CAV4 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

65 ACC5-CAV5 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

66 ACC5-CAV6 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

67 ACC5-CAV7 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

68 ACC5-CAV8 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

69 ACC6-CAV1 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

70 ACC6-CAV2 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

71 ACC6-CAV3 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

72 ACC6-CAV4 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

73 ACC6-CAV5 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

74 ACC6-CAV6 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

75 ACC6-CAV7 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

76 ACC6-CAV8 Here we use sample number 750 indicates start of the flat top, while 1350 indicates the end of the flat top.

77 Some Conclusions From the non-integral power spectrum, we can see there is clearly something going on at frequency units (ACC4-2, 3, 6, 8) and at ~40 frequency units (ACC4-5, ACC5-2, 5, 6, 8, ACC6-1). The effect of ~40 frequency units seems bigger than that of ~10-15 units (one particular example is the effect of ~40 frequency units on ACC6-1). However, the contribution of them to the total integral power spectrum is relatively small, only about ~10-30%. The enormous signal on the spectrum for ACC6-1 would be consistent with the information that this cavity is unstable (Valeri Ayvazyan). Big amplitude deviation usually comes with large gradient tilt along the RF pulse flat top. The deviation of the flat top end is usually bigger than that of the start.