Measurements show that ratio decrease versus power. BUT, the second resonance measurement induce lower power in the cavity so the ratio is not directly true.

Also, simulation of the main/second resonance power by Pierre's simulation has shown ratio ~50, ~47.6 and 43.5 respectively for 0A, 2A and 4A.

function [TAS,r,r_prod] = GetCavity(cav_name,varargin)
% Return T and r coefficient of a given cavity
% TAS vector contains the 4 T coeffs, then 4 A coeffs, then 4 S coeffs

if strcmp(cav_name,'SBOX_ULE')==1
    TAS(1) = 180e-6;   % T
    TAS(2) = 2e-6;
    TAS(3) = 2e-6;
    TAS(4) = 2e-6;
    TAS(5) = 1.15e-6;  % A
    TAS(6) = 1.27e-6;
    TAS(7) = 1.2e-6;
    TAS(8) = 1e-6;
    TAS(9) =  7e-6;     % S
    TAS(10) = 4.5e-6;
    TAS(11) = 3.6e-6;
    TAS(12) = 9e-6;
%     TAS(1) = 180e-6;   % T
%     TAS(2) = 3.2e-6;
%     TAS(3) = 2.8e-6;
%     TAS(4) = 2.85e-6;
%     TAS(5) = 30e-6;  % A
%     TAS(6) = 30e-6;
%     TAS(7) = 30e-6;
%     TAS(8) = 30e-6;
%     TAS(9) = 20e-6;     % S
%     TAS(10) = 20e-6;
%     TAS(11) = 20e-6;
%     TAS(12) = 20e-6;
    
elseif strcmp(cav_name,'ThomX')==1
    TAS(1) = 120e-6;   % T
    TAS(2) = 1.5e-6;
    TAS(3) = 1.5e-6;
    TAS(4) = 1.5e-6;
    TAS(5) = 0.4e-6;  % A
    TAS(6) = 0.24e-6;
    TAS(7) = 0.24e-6;
    TAS(8) = 0.27e-6;
    TAS(9) = 4e-6;     % S
    TAS(10) = 4.5e-6;
    TAS(11) = 10e-6;
    TAS(12) = 4.5e-6;
    
elseif strcmp(cav_name,'MIGHTY_low')==1
    TAS(1) = 1060e-6;
    TAS(2) = 330e-6;
    TAS(3) = 330e-6;
    TAS(4) = 330e-6;
    TAS(5:12) = 0;

elseif strcmp(cav_name,'Fab_cav')==1
    TAS(1) = 100e-6;
    TAS(2) = 10e-6;
    TAS(3) = 10e-6;
    TAS(4) = 10e-6;
    TAS(5:12) = 0;
end

switch nargin
    case 2
        TAS = repmat(TAS,numel(varargin{1}),1);
        TAS(:,1) = varargin{1};
    case 3
        TAS = repmat(TAS,numel(varargin{1}),1);
        TAS(:,1) = varargin{1};
        TAS(:,2) = varargin{2};
end
    
% Field reflection coeffs
rr = @(TAS) (1-sum(TAS,2)).^(1/2);
for ii = 1:4
    r(:,ii) = rr(TAS(:,ii:4:12));
end
r_prod = prod(r,2);
end