RF Stability Working Group

Jorn Jacob (ESRF), John Byrd (LBNL)

General Issues
RF phase and amplitude noise
filtered by cavity and translate into timing and energy jitter of beam
slow phase shifts cause timing jitter
fast phase and amplitude shifts (f~fs) cause energy jitter. IR Beamline
typically most sensitive to fast jitter.
stretched bunches complicate issues

Coupled bunch instabilities

driven by cavity higher-order-modes
vertical instabilities driven by resistive wall and ion effects (not covered in
this workshop)

Single bunch instabilities (not covered)

driven by broadband vacuum chamber impedance (i.e. tapers, etc.)
longitudinal microwave instabilities
vertical mode coupling instabilities

Findings

Most of the users request about 1 deg phase stability, typical for 3GLS. No
reference specified.
0.1 deg is a more challenging objective. This request comes from time resolved
experiments. It looks like the RF needs 0.1 deg stability above about the 100 Hz
range, whereas the experiment can lock on larger residual phase fluctuation below
100 Hz.
Energy oscillation has only been specified as a fixed, frequency independent
quantity. Again time resolved experiments give the most stringent upper limit of
E/E < 5 10-5 .
Choice of RF transmitter technology: the current design foresees the use of
Klystrons. Solid state amplifiers are discussed, having intrinsically less phase
noise and no saturation.
Concern with klystron approach: phase noise from power supply ripple ~1.2 deg.,
saturation of klystron makes rf loop difficult: suggestion to use scalar phase loop
Tied with the above, proper design of RF fast and slow control loops, including or
not beam phase
Looked at necessity of harmonic cavities for lifetime: impacts number of
injections/minute. Together with ion gap in filling keeping phase transients
reasonable pushes for superconducting main and harmonic cavities
With harmonic cavities, the phase and amplitude transfer functions from klystrons
to beam and cavities become complicated, bandwidth of feedback probably limited
to less than 1 kHz.
Simulations indicate that LCBI from high frequency resonances are mitigated by
the landau cavity.

Recommendations (1)

The exact specification for phase and energy jitter should be clearly
defined as a function of frequency.
The transfer from phase to energy oscillation is substantial at low
frequency, peaks at the synchrotron frequency (3 .. 4 kHz) and
decreases for higher frequencies. The situation becomes even more
complicate with harmonic cavities and needs to be further studied.
The upper limit of E/E < 5 10-5 should be checked against the required
position stability at the locations with dispersion (at the 2 nd dipole
location with =5 cm this would give 2.5 m, a factor 10 above the 0.3
m specification, e.g. for IR beam lines).
Effects of beam instabilities are source of transverse and/or longitudinal
oscillations and need to be investigated.
Further analysis of cavity and beam, phase and amplitude transfer
functions are required for the RF system including harmonic cavities.
Simulations should include RF loops to check maximum achievable gain
/ bandwidth. Simulations should lead to a specification of the LLRF
system.
Probably, a fast RF feedback will not be compatible with stretched
bunch operation. Then a scalar phase loop around the transmitter will
have to be optimized to minimize RF phase noise.

Recommendations (2)

The choice of SC technology for main and harmonic cavities is endorsed as to be

necessary for sufficent lifetime even with a gap in the fill pattern (> 3h lifetime
required for less than one injection shot / minute in top up mode).
The use of the harmonic cavities for Landau damping of possible remaining HOMs at
higher frequencies up to 7 GHz (due to high vacuum chamber cut off) seems
adequate.
The choice of SC cavity technology (CESR B or KEK B) needs to be further
discussed. Reliability being also important for an overall beam stability (e.g. thermal
transients after trips), the power capability of the RF coupler is an issue for the large
beam power at NSLS II. The CESR B cavity would already be operated at its upper
power limit.
If noise from klystron transmitter appears to be too high even with an adequate phase
loop, check possibility of alternative technologies:
IOT transmitters, as used at Diamond, which dont convert HV ripple into Phase noise as
much as klystrons.
Solid state amplifiers, powered by 100 kHz switched power supplies (far above the
synchrotron frequency) , and which provide very low phase noise -> SOLEIL (352 MHz) and
SLS (500 MHz).
Moreover, solid state amplifiers are extremely modular and are therefore intrinsicly
redundant and provide high reliability (indeed a very low failure rate has been experienced
by SOLEIL so far).

A survey of existing LLRF systems should be conducted (development of custom

sytems at many labs). FPGA based systems matching NSLS II requirements should
be identified.
Opt for as simple as possible robust design. Use high quality components, solid power
supplies for all parts of the RF system to minimize noise and drifts.
The timing system needs to be specified in detail.

Summary
NSLS-II RF group should be congratulated
for an excellent initial survey
of noise
whining,
complaints,
bickering, insults, etc.
effects.
Noise requirements need frequency
specification. Constant dialogue with users
critical to understand noise requirements.
Initial investigation of instabilities promising.
Further work needs to be done. Sensitivity
to small effects.