Not logged in
Mon Aug 10 22:18:19 2015, Ignacio, Update, IOO, Ready to do some online mode cleaner subtraction
Tue Aug 11 11:30:19 2015, Ignacio, Update, IOO, SISO (T240-X) FF of MCL
Wed Aug 12 01:32:18 2015, Ignacio, Update, IOO, Improved SISO (T240-X) FF of MCL
Wed Aug 19 01:45:10 2015, Ignacio, Update, IOO, Doubly Improved SISO (T240-X) FF of MCL
Thu Aug 20 11:09:10 2015, rana, Update, IOO, some points about seismic FF
Thu Aug 27 01:41:41 2015, Ignacio, Update, IOO, Triply Improved SISO (T240-X) FF of MCL
Fri Aug 28 00:59:55 2015, Ignacio, Update, IOO, Final SISO FF Wiener Filter for MCL
Thu Aug 20 11:09:10 2015
In reply to:
some points about seismic FF
When plotting the subtraction performance, we mainly care about the 0.5 - 10 Hz band, so we care about the RMS in this band. Don't integrate over the whole band.
When calculating the Wiener filter, you must use the pre-weighting so as to not let the Wiener residual be dominated by the out of band signals. We don't want the filter to try to do anything outside of the 0.5 - 10 Hz band.
Somehow, we want to assign a penalty for the filter to have high frequency gain. We do NOT want to slap on an ad-hoc low pass filter. The point of the Wiener filtering is to make the optimum.
What is the reason for the poor filter performance from 0.5 - 2 Hz ? If we use the frequency domain (Dmass) subtraction technique, we can do better, so there's some inefficiency in this process.
we're getting too much of the 3 Hz stack mode coupling into MCL. I think this means that our damping filters should be using RG around the suspension eigenmodes rather than just simple velocity damping. We had this years ago, but it caused some weird interaction with the angular loops...to be puzzled out.