Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Results from 9mA studies on achieving flat gradients with beam loading P K |Q L studies at FLASH.

Published bySavion Marler Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Results from 9mA studies on achieving flat gradients with beam loading P K |Q L studies at FLASH."— Presentation transcript:

1 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Results from 9mA studies on achieving flat gradients with beam loading P K |Q L studies at FLASH during the Feb. 2011 test in DESY J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA

2 OVERVIEW Problem statement and historical background – Why do we care about individual flat gradients? – What solutions were offered to achieve flat gradients with beam loading? – What can we actually implement at FLASH? The Feb.’11 study at FLASH – What approach have we followed during the FLASH test studies? – Results of the P K |Q L studies Conclusions and lessons learnt – Study insights – Approach limitations – Improvements 2

3 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Introduction: problem statement Why do we care about individual flat gradients? “Effect of Cavity Tilt and RF Fluctuations to Transverse Beam Orbit Change in ILC Main Linac” K. Kubo, Jan. 2010 all Q L  3x10 6 no beam no tilts all Q L  3x10 6 I b = 3 mA tilts +/- 2MV/m +/- 10 % 3 FLASH ACC6 & ACC7

4 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Introduction: problem statement FNAL approach to cavity quench due to beam ON/OFF operations “Optimal Coupler and Power Settings for Superconductive Linear Accelerators”, J. Branlard, B. Chase, Linac 2008 4  produces fixed P K /Q L settings (unique to each cavity) which is safe for all beam loadings (i.e. no tuning action required to prevent quench)  individual cavities gradients have tilts with beam Beam OFF Beam ON

5 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Introduction: problem statement Published “solutions” to flat cavity gradient with beam “RF Distribution Optimization in the Main Linacs of the ILC” Bane, Adolphsen, Nantista - WEPMS037.pdf, 2007  Assumes a square forward power pulse  Assumes adjustable P K ’s 5

6 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Problem space at FLASH  Focus on ACC6 and ACC7  Motorized couplers (Q L adjustments, limited range)  Fixed power distribution (i.e. P K ), except for 3dB hybrid  Motorized static tuners  Dynamic cavity resonance control with piezo Introduction: problem statement 6

7 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Introduction: problem statement Published “solutions” to flat cavity gradient with beam “PkQl-like control for ACC6/7 at FLASH” PkQl_FLASHver3.docxShin Michizono, Sept. 2010 “To flatten the cavity gradient for ACC6/7” FLASH101022BV2.pdfShin Michizono, Nov. 2010  solves the same problem but using existing P K distribution  no PK adjustments for different beam loading, only Q L changes  version1: assumes a square forward power pulse yield very low Q L values  version2: assumes a fill time / flat top power step yield Q L values within acceptable range 7

8 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Introduction: problem statement Published “solutions” to flat cavity gradient with beam “PkQl-like control for ACC6/7 at FLASH” PkQl_FLASHver3.docxShin Michizono, Sept. 2010 “To flatten the cavity gradient for ACC6/7” FLASH101022BV2.pdfShin Michizono, Nov. 2010  solves the same problem but using existing P K distribution  no PK adjustments for different beam loading, only Q L changes  version1: assumes a square forward power pulse yield very low Q L values  version2: assumes a fill time / flat top power step yield Q L values within acceptable range 8

9 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA FLASH studies: 5 shift overview no beam, low gradient Friday 2/4 night shift: no beam, low gradient – no beam – ACC6/7 vector sum calibration 100 bunches, 1 MHz, 1.6 nC – QL tuners characterization for ACC6/7 – simulator calibration to reflect ACC6/7 power distribution 1 mA, low gradient Saturday 2/5 night shift:1 mA, low gradient – 1mA beam, low gradient (100 MeV – 200 MeV) – Successfully implemented QL adjustments to flatten cavity gradients – beam loading tilts correction (all tilts below 1%) using simulator predicted values – Simulated values are reliable 1.6 mA, mid-gradient Sunday 2/6 night shift:1.6 mA, mid-gradient – 1.6mA beam, low gradient (200 MeV) – low gradient, beam loading tilts Q L correction (below 1%) – beam current scan – QL scan 3.0 mA - 4.5 mA, mid and high gradient Monday 2/7 night shift:3.0 mA - 4.5 mA, mid and high gradient – 3.0mA beam, 200 MeV – QL adjusted for gradient flat at 3mA – beam scan from 0.9 to 4.5 mA – 4.5mA beam, 300 MeV – QL adjusted for gradient flat at 4.5 mA – beam current scan 4.2 mA, highest gradient Tuesday 2/8 afternoon shift:4.2 mA, highest gradient – 4.2mA beam, 360 MeV – Lorentz force detuning compensation – Use calculator to predict QL  gives very accurate prediction – Flatten ACC6/7 gradients tilts to ~ 1.5% – beam current scan 9

10 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA ACC6 & ACC7 Q L settings limits ACC6cav1cav2cav3cav4cav5cav6cav7cav8 Q L min [x10 6 ]1.21 11.5 1 Q L max [x10 6 ]757.55.58.57.56.54 ACC7cav1cav2cav3cav4cav5cav6cav7cav8 Q L min [x10 6 ]1.11.81.61.31.11.41.72.1 Q L max [x10 6 ]3.43.83.73.63.3 4.6 not “hard” limits 10

11 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Fermilab Beams Doc database: Beams-doc-3794 11

12 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Fermilab Beams Doc database: Beams-doc-3794 12

13 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Calibration procedure 1.Load V cav from DAQ 2.Compute actual Q L, P K and  f from DAQ data 3.Type in Q L, P K and  f into simulator 4.Check agreement between simulated and FLASH data 5.Adjust Q L in simulator to flatten tilts 6.Implement Q L corrections in FLASH 7.Check gradient flatness DAQ data: Feb. 07 2011, 22:37 I b = 4.5 mA FLASH DAQ data 13 (retune cavities if needed)

14 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Calibration procedure 1.Load V cav from DAQ 2.Compute actual Q L, P K and  f from DAQ data 3.Type in Q L, P K and  f into simulator 4.Check agreement between simulated and FLASH data 5.Adjust Q L in simulator to flatten tilts 6.Implement Q L corrections in FLASH 7.Check gradient flatness simulated data vector sum 14 (retune cavities if needed)

15 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Calibration procedure 1.Load V cav from DAQ 2.Compute actual Q L, P K and  f from DAQ data 3.Type in Q L, P K and  f into simulator 4.Check agreement between simulated and FLASH data 5.Adjust Q L in simulator to flatten tilts 6.Implement Q L corrections in FLASH 7.Check gradient flatness FLASH DAQ data simulated data vector sum 15 (retune cavities if needed)

16 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Calibration procedure 1.Load V cav from DAQ 2.Compute actual Q L, P K and  f from DAQ data 3.Type in Q L, P K and  f into simulator 4.Check agreement between simulated and FLASH data 5.Adjust Q L in simulator to flatten tilts 6.Implement Q L corrections in FLASH 7.Check gradient flatness simulated data vector sum 16 (retune cavities if needed)

17 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Calibration procedure 1.Load V cav from DAQ 2.Compute actual Q L, P K and  f from DAQ data 3.Type in Q L, P K and  f into simulator 4.Check agreement between simulated and FLASH data 5.Adjust Q L in simulator to flatten tilts 6.Implement Q L corrections in FLASH 7.Check gradient flatness simulated data vector sum 17 (retune cavities if needed)

18 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Calibration procedure 1.Load V cav from DAQ 2.Compute actual Q L, P K and  f from DAQ data 3.Type in Q L, P K and  f into simulator 4.Check agreement between simulated and FLASH data 5.Adjust Q L in simulator to flatten tilts 6.Implement Q L corrections in FLASH 7.Check gradient flatness FLASH DAQ data simulated data vector sum 18 (retune cavities if needed)

19 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA (retune cavities if needed) Calibration procedure 1.Load V cav from DAQ 2.Compute actual Q L, P K and  f from DAQ data 3.Type in Q L, P K and  f into simulator 4.Check agreement between simulated and FLASH data 5.Adjust Q L in simulator to flatten tilts 6.Implement Q L corrections in FLASH 7.Check gradient flatness FLASH DAQ data simulated data vector sum 19

20 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Assessing the accuracy of the model Q L scan  Keep beam current constant but walk Q L ’s around optimized value I B scan  Keep optimized Q L ’s but ramp beam up/down -0.6 -0.4 - 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8  Q L 3 2 1 0 -2 -3 gradient tilts [%] 20

21 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Assessing the accuracy of the model Q L scan  Keep beam current constant but walk Q L ’s around optimized value I B scan  Keep optimized Q L ’s but ramp beam up/down 21

22 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Beam scans Su 02/06 night shiftMo 02/07 night shift Tu 02/08 afternoon shift 200 MeV 1.6mA 200 MeV 3.0mA 300 MeV 4.5mA 360 MeV 4.5mA 22

23 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA The analytical solution  assumes “perfect” tuning  solve for Q Li when possible cavity i loaded Q cavity i forward power during fill time [W] DC beam current [A] fill time (  beam arrival time) [s] fill time to flat top voltage ratio (including beam compensation) Given a fixed power distribution, a known beam current and beam compensation, find individual Q L ’s that will flatten cavity gradients during beam time * “Note on solving QL for flat gradients at FLASH ACC6 and ACC7”, J. Branlard, Feb 2011, FNAL Beams-doc-3796 “Analytical solution to the cavity tilt problem.docx”, G. Cancelo, Feb 2011 * 23

24 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Beam ON/OFF DAQ data 02/08 5:46:14DAQ data 02/08 5:51:36 Ib = 4.5 mAIb = 0 mA  Cavities below vector sum rise without beam  Cavities above vector sum drop without beam  Need for an automatic safety feature to shorten RF pulse to prevent quench 24

25 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Study insights What went well Very stable machine  long study time Motorized couplers / tuners  optimal study conditions automated scripts + skilled operators Simulator proved to be very useful Predicted optimized Q L values were accurate  to 0.2e6 Successfully implemented the tuning plan  tilts < 0.1MV/m What we’ve learnt Cavity resonance control is crucial for gradient tilts Limitations to the simulation approach: – How accurately can we measure the power distribution?  John’s slide – How accurately can we compensate for LFD OR include in model?  next slide – How accurately can we measure and set Q L ’s  +/- 2 to 5% – Fine tuning “by-eye” is compromised by operating in closed loop What is still unanswered No proposed solution for high beam currents (>6mA) implementable at FLASH There is not always a solution to flatten all cavities (especially when gradient spread is large) No solution to bring up the machine at its highest gradient 25

26 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA 26 Before freq. tuner adjustmentsAfter freq. tuner adjustments AMPLITUDE PHASE ~ 0.1 MV/m Q L = 1.58x10 6  f = 70 Hz

27 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Bringing up a linac Traditional approach (i.e. FLASH) 1.Make target gradient with FF 2.Turn FB on 3.Compensate for LFD 4.Send a couple of pilot bunches (~10) (automated beam loading compensation) 5.Minimize losses 6.Gradually increase bunch length to full train (while minimizing beam losses) 7.Learning feed forward 1.Bring cavity to their nominal gradient  typically: quench gradient -2-3 MV/m 2. Adjust Q L so cavities are flat with beam  cavity will quench (because no beam) 3. Shorten pulse length to avoid quench  typically <200 usec for high beam currents Q L ’s  can’t see LFD effects (can’t compensate for LFD)  can’t walk pilot bunch across flat top 4. As you increase bunch length  increase flat top length  compensate for LFD  minimize losses 5. The LLRF quench monitoring system should  truncate the flat top length to prevent quenches  every time bunch train is shorter than expected One “possible” scenario for flat gradients 27

28 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA References “RF Distribution Optimization in the Main Linacs of the ILC”, Bane, Adolphsen, Nantista - WEPMS037.pdf “Optimal Coupler and Power Settings for Superconductive Linear Accelerators”, J. Branlard, B. Chase, Linac 2008 “Optimizing Cavity Gradient in Pulsed Linacs Using the Cavity Transient Response”, G. Cancelo, A. Vignoni, Linac 2008 “Effect of Cavity Tilt and RF Fluctuations to Transverse Beam Orbit Change in ILC Main Linac”, K. Kubo, Jan. 2010 “PkQl-like control for ACC6/7 at FLASH” S. Michizono, PkQl_FLASHver3.docx, Sept. 2010 “To flatten the cavity gradient for ACC6/7” S. Michizono, FLASH101022BV2.pdf, Nov. 2010 “Analytical solution to the cavity tilt problem.docx”, G. Cancelo, Feb 2011 “Note on solving QL for flat gradients at FLASH ACC6 and ACC7”, J. Branlard, FNAL Beams-doc-3796 SIMCAV version 4.8 (FLASH ACC6 and ACC7 16 cavity MATLAB simulator), FNAL Beams-doc-3794 28

29 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA THANK YOU 29

30 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA BACKUP SLIDES 30

31 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA SUMMARY Why do we care about individual flat gradients? – KEK paper What can we actually implement at FLASH? – No P K adjustments – Only Q L can be changed – Limited range in Q L changes What solutions were offered to achieve flat gradients with beam loading? – SLAC paper, using Q L and P K adjustments – Shin’s solution with square P fwd pulse – Shin’s solution with step ratio P fwd pulse What approach have we followed during the FLASH test studies? – Procedure (issues with adjusting Q L when beam is OFF) – When beam is ON, beam compensation is ON too – Which tools did we use – The analytical solution Results of the P K |Q L studies – Assess Q L ranges – Low gradient / mid gradient – Low beam / mid beam current – Beam scans – Q L scans Conclusions and lessons learnt – How accurate were the tuning adjustments? – What limited the accuracy of tuning adjustments? – Difference between solving the problem open / close loop – Impact of detuning on tilts (static & dynamic) – No solution to bringing the machine up to its maximum gradient 31

32 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Shift-by shift highlights 32

33 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Friday 2/4 night shift – highlights: no beam ACC6/7 vector sum calibration 100 bunches, 1 MHz, 1.6 nC Q L tuners characterization for ACC6/7 simulator calibration to reflect ACC6/7 power distribution 33

34 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Q L = 3e6Q L = 2.65e6 Saturday 2/5 night shift – highlights: 1mA beam, low gradient (100–200 MeV) Successfully implemented QL adjustments to flatten cavity gradients beam loading tilts correction (all tilts below 1%) using simulator predicted values Simulated values are reliable 34

35 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Sunday 2/6 night shift – highlights: 1.6mA beam, low gradient (200 MeV) beam loading tilts Q L correction (below 1%) (several cavities at once, with beam on) beam current scan Q L scan Ql config is for ACC7: cav1 : 2.8 e6 cav2 : 2.8 e6 cav3 : 2.8 e6 cav4 : 2.8 e6 cav5 : 2.5 e6 cav6 : 2.5 e6 cav7 : 3.1 e6 cav8 : 3.2 e6 35

36 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Monday 2/7 night shift – highlights: 3.0mA beam, 200 MeV Q L adjusted for gradient flat at 3mA beam scan from 0.9 to 4.5 mA 4.5mA beam, 300 MeV QL adjusted for gradient flat at 4.5 mA beam current scan 36

37 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA ACC7 Q L values Predicted Implemented cav1. 1.78 e6 cav2. 1.74 e6 cav3. 1.85 e6 cav4. 1.88 e6 cav5. 3.25 e6 cav6. 3.12 e6 cav7. 2.37 e6 cav8. 2.40 e6 Beam OFF Beam ON Tuesday 2/8 afternoon shift – highlights: 4.2mA beam, 360 MeV Lorentz force detuning compensation Use calculator to predict QL  very accurate prediction Flatten ACC6/7 gradients tilts to ~ 1.5% (tuned for 4.2mA) beam current scan to 4.5 mA ACC6 ACC7 37

38 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Power ratios 38 Power ratio (dB)

39 J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA 3 sequences of detuning: cav1, then cav2 then cav3. when we reach the end of the detuning range of one cavity, the detuning of the adjacent cavity is affected Q L changes with the detuning for all three cavity (cav1 and 2 in one direction, cav3 in the opposite direction) We see that Q L (cav1) and Q L (cav2) are coupled. Similarly, Q L (cav3) and Q L (cav4), but no cav3-cav1 coupling Power coupling between adjacent cavities 39

Download ppt "J. Branlard ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Results from 9mA studies on achieving flat gradients with beam loading P K |Q L studies at FLASH."

Similar presentations

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

Tom Powers Practical Aspects of SRF Cavity Testing and Operations SRF Workshop 2011 Tutorial Session.
of LFD Compensation Study S1 Global Cryomodule

of LFD Compensation Study S1 Global Cryomodule
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.

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.
Lorentz force detuning measurements on the CEA cavity

Lorentz force detuning measurements on the CEA cavity
Stephen Molloy RF Group ESS Accelerator Division

Stephen Molloy RF Group ESS Accelerator Division
On Cavity Tilt + Gradient Change (Beam Dynamics) 2010.09.08 K. Kubo K. Kubo.

On Cavity Tilt + Gradient Change (Beam Dynamics) K. Kubo K. Kubo.
Eric Prebys, FNAL.  As you’ll show in homework, the synchrotron tune (longitudinal oscillations/turn) is generally

Eric Prebys, FNAL.  As you’ll show in homework, the synchrotron tune (longitudinal oscillations/turn) is generally
SLHC-PP – WP7 Critical Components for Injector Upgrade Plasma Generator – CERN, DESY, STFC-RAL Linac4 2MHz RF source Thermal Modeling Gas Measurement and.

SLHC-PP – WP7 Critical Components for Injector Upgrade Plasma Generator – CERN, DESY, STFC-RAL Linac4 2MHz RF source Thermal Modeling Gas Measurement and.
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.

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.
SRF Results and Requirements Internal MLC Review Matthias Liepe1.

SRF Results and Requirements Internal MLC Review Matthias Liepe1.
Beam tolerance to RF faults & consequences on RF specifications Frédéric Bouly MAX 1 st Design Review WP1 - Task 1.2 Bruxelles, Belgium Monday, 12 th November.

Beam tolerance to RF faults & consequences on RF specifications Frédéric Bouly MAX 1 st Design Review WP1 - Task 1.2 Bruxelles, Belgium Monday, 12 th November.
BPMs and HOM-BPMs for the XFEL Linac N. Baboi for the BPM and the HOM teams (DESY, CEA-Saclay, SLAC, FNAL, Cockroft/Daresbury) XFEL Linac Review Meeting,

BPMs and HOM-BPMs for the XFEL Linac N. Baboi for the BPM and the HOM teams (DESY, CEA-Saclay, SLAC, FNAL, Cockroft/Daresbury) XFEL Linac Review Meeting,
First measurements of longitudinal impedance and single-bunch effects in LHC E. Shaposhnikova for BE/RF Thanks: P. Baudrenghien, A. Butterworth, T. Bohl,

First measurements of longitudinal impedance and single-bunch effects in LHC E. Shaposhnikova for BE/RF Thanks: P. Baudrenghien, A. Butterworth, T. Bohl,
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.

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.
RF Cavity Simulation for SPL Simulink Model for HP-SPL Extension to LINAC4 at CERN from RF Point of View Acknowledgement: CEA team, in particular O. Piquet.

RF Cavity Simulation for SPL Simulink Model for HP-SPL Extension to LINAC4 at CERN from RF Point of View Acknowledgement: CEA team, in particular O. Piquet.
LLRF Cavity Simulation for SPL

LLRF Cavity Simulation for SPL
Proposed TDR baseline LLRF design J. Carwardine, 22 May 2012.

Proposed TDR baseline LLRF design J. Carwardine, 22 May 2012.
LLRF ILC GDE Meeting Feb.6,2007 Shin Michizono LLRF - Stability requirements and proposed llrf system - Typical rf perturbations - Achieved stability at.

LLRF ILC GDE Meeting Feb.6,2007 Shin Michizono LLRF - Stability requirements and proposed llrf system - Typical rf perturbations - Achieved stability at.
Recent LFD Control Results from FNAL Yuriy Pischalnikov Warren Schappert TTF/FLASH 9mA Meeting on Cavity Gradient Flatness June 01, 2010.

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.

1Matthias LiepeAugust 2, 2007 LLRF for the ERL Matthias Liepe.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google