40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log  Not logged in ELOG logo
Entry  Fri Sep 12 00:40:23 2014, Jenne, Update, LSC, DRMI locking 
    Reply  Fri Sep 12 11:25:42 2014, Koji, Update, LSC, DRMI locking 
       Reply  Fri Sep 12 12:00:59 2014, ericq, Update, LSC, DRMI locking 
    Reply  Fri Sep 12 14:11:17 2014, ericq, Update, LSC, DRMI locking 7x
       Reply  Wed Sep 17 15:40:00 2014, ericq, Update, LSC, DRMI locking dcAngleDiff_srcL.pdfdrfpmiVertexSensing.zip
          Reply  Tue Sep 23 17:37:10 2014, ericq, Update, LSC, DRMI locking SRCcorrection.pdf
             Reply  Wed Sep 24 11:02:38 2014, manasa, Update, LSC, Moving SRM 
                Reply  Thu Sep 25 11:33:41 2014, Jenne, Update, LSC, POY alignment laser 
Message ID: 10502     Entry time: Fri Sep 12 14:11:17 2014     In reply to: 10498     Reply to this: 10514
Author: ericq 
Type: Update 
Category: LSC 
Subject: DRMI locking 

We need to get an interferometric estimation of the SRC length error / SRC sideband splitting, because if the 7.5cm hand-measured error is true, it looks like it might be hard to control the DRMI on 3F. 


I did some DRMI sensing simulations, to get an idea if sensing matrix elements might change as the CARM offset changes. Last night, I tried just going to zero CARM offset on ALS, and was having problems keeping the PRMI locked on REFL33, so I wanted to confirm that it should at least work in theory. 

Thus, I simulated what happens to the sensing matrix element in the vertex DoFs as the CARM offset is reduced, in both the PR and SR cases. I normalized all of the elements to PRCL at zero carm offset, to get an idea of what the good relative gains should be for MICH and SRCL. 

In the end, there don't seem to be significant DC gain changes, or demod angle fluctuations, in either the PRFPMI or DRFPMI case, as the CARM offset changes, which is good.

However, the SRC length as hand-measured, seems to mess up the MICH angle in the DRFPMI case, and really lowers the SRCL signal amplitude. 

To be fair, past efforts of simulating demodulation angles haven't always been borne out on the IFO, so we should still forge ahead experimentally until it becomes apparent that there is a real problem. 


Here are the simulations for the IFO as-is:

(A note on the plots. Though they kind of look like Bodes, they're just the sensing element represented as a complex number in the I-Q plane,I being phase=0 and Q = 90)

dcPRCL3F.pdfdcMICH3F.pdfdcSRCL3F.pdf

All three signals are along the I axis in the DRMI case, which seems like it would be tough to control, since we only have 2 3F diodes... We've been using REFL33Q when PRMIing, which is simulated at around 45 deg; it should be easy to verify this empirically. 


Here are the same plots with the SRC length corrected. Now MICH shows up mostly in the Q phase as desired in the DRMI case. SRCL in REFL165 also wins 20dB of optical gain, as well. 

dcPRCL3F_correctSRC.pdfdcMICH3F_correctSRC.pdfdcSRCL3F_correctSRC.pdf

 


To drive the point home, here's a simulated scan of AS110 and REFL55 Q to show the effect of the measured length error:

SRClengthEffects.pdf

 

ELOG V3.1.3-