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  Thu Nov 5 02:18:32 2015, gautam, Update, LSC, FSR and linewidth measurements with phase tracker 
    Reply  Fri Nov 6 15:56:00 2015, gautam, Update, LSC, FSR and linewidth measurements with phase tracker Xcalib.pdfYcalib.pdfY_scan_log.pdf2015-11-05_phase_tracker_calib.dat.zip2015-11-04_y_arm_scan.dat.zip
       Reply  Mon Nov 9 11:34:51 2015, yutaro, Update, LSC, FSR and linewidth measurements with phase tracker plt.pngfitresult_and_code.zip
          Reply  Mon Nov 9 14:24:36 2015, yutaro, Update, LSC, FSR and linewidth measurements with phase tracker 
             Reply  Mon Nov 9 15:59:06 2015, ericq, Update, LSC, FSR and linewidth measurements with phase tracker 
                Reply  Mon Nov 9 16:58:59 2015, gautam, Update, LSC, FSR and linewidth measurements with phase tracker Y_scan.pdfmodDepth.pdfMatlab_code.zip
                   Reply  Tue Nov 10 02:34:28 2015, gautam, Update, LSC, Updated interpretation of peaks Y_scan.pdfmodDepth.pdf
                      Reply  Tue Nov 10 11:06:02 2015, yutaro, Update, LSC, Updated interpretation of peaks HOMlocation.pnghomfit.png
                         Reply  Tue Nov 10 11:40:03 2015, Koji, Update, LSC, Updated interpretation of peaks 
                            Reply  Tue Nov 10 16:34:00 2015, yutaro, Update, LSC, Updated interpretation of peaks homfit2.png
                               Reply  Fri Nov 13 17:33:39 2015, gautam, Update, LSC, g-factor measurements findGFactor.zip
                      Reply  Tue Nov 10 11:41:56 2015, Koji, Update, LSC, Updated interpretation of peaks 
       Reply  Fri Nov 13 15:48:16 2015, gautam, Update, LSC, Phase tracker calibration using Rubidium standard 6x
Message ID: 11746     Entry time: Tue Nov 10 11:06:02 2015     In reply to: 11745     Reply to this: 11747
Author: yutaro 
Type: Update 
Category: LSC 
Subject: Updated interpretation of peaks 
Quote:
Quote:

- modulation depth = 0.390 +/- 0.062

There are two modulation frequencies that make it to the arm cavities, at ~11MHz and ~55MHz. Each of these will have their own modulation depth indepedent of each other. Bundling them together into one number doesn't tell us what's really going on. 

 

I'm sorry. I misunderstood two things when writing elog 11741: the number of modulation frequencies, and how to distinguish modulation peaks and HOM peaks.

 

Now, I report about interpretation of the peaks marked in grey in Attachment #1 in elog 11745.

Summary:

The peaks marked in grey are interpreted as 3rd and 4th HOM resonance, if we assume that the radius of curvature of ETMY is slightly different from measured value. (measured: 57.6 m --> assumed: 59.3 m)

 

What I have done:

I plotted the differences in frequency between HOM peaks and 00 mode peaks (see Attachment #1) vs. expected orders of modes. The plot is shown in Attachement #2.

By fitting these data points, I calculated most likely value of gradient of this plot. This value corresponds: g_ITMYg_ETMY=0.3781. However, measured data of the radii of curvature suggests that g_ITMYg_ETMY=0.358. Assuming that this disagreement comes from the difference between measured and real values of ROC of ETMY (ITM is almost flat so that change of ROC of ITM doesn't have significant effect on g_ITMg_ETM), ROC of ETMY should be 59.3 m, different from measured value 57.6 m.

 

What I'd like to know:

-- Is such disagreement of ROC usual? Could it happen?

-- Are there any other possible explanations for this disagreement (or interpretations of the peaks marked in grey)?

Attachment 1: HOMlocation.png  179 kB  | Hide | Hide all
HOMlocation.png
Attachment 2: homfit.png  58 kB  | Hide | Hide all
homfit.png
ELOG V3.1.3-