40m
QIL
Cryo_Lab
CTN
SUS_Lab
TCS_Lab
OMC_Lab
CRIME_Lab
FEA
ENG_Labs
OptContFac
Mariner
WBEEShop
|
40m Log |
Not logged in |
 |
|
Mon May 2 17:11:55 2016, rana, Update, COC, RC folding mirrors
|
Wed May 18 01:10:22 2016, gautam, Update, COC, Finesse modelling   
|
Tue May 24 22:49:02 2016, gautam, Update, COC, Finesse modelling - mode overlap scans 9x
|
Tue May 24 23:17:37 2016, ericq, Update, COC, Finesse modelling - mode overlap scans
|
Thu Jun 16 15:57:46 2016, gautam, Update, COC, Contrast as a function of RoC of ETMX 
|
Thu Jun 16 18:42:12 2016, rana, Update, COC, Contrast as a function of RoC of ETMX
|
Thu Jun 16 23:02:57 2016, gautam, Update, COC, Contrast as a function of RoC of ETMX
|
Mon Jun 20 01:38:04 2016, rana, Update, COC, Contrast as a function of RoC of ETMX
|
Mon Jun 20 18:07:15 2016, gautam, Update, COC, Contrast as a function of RoC of ETMX
|
Tue Jun 28 16:06:09 2016, gautam, Update, COC, RC folding mirrors - further checks 
|
Thu Jun 30 16:21:32 2016, gautam, Update, COC, Sideband HOMs resonating in arms  
|
Sat Aug 13 18:25:22 2016, gautam, Update, COC, RC folding mirrors - Numerical review   
|
Tue Aug 16 11:51:43 2016, gautam, Update, COC, RC folding mirrors - Numerical review   
|
Tue Aug 16 16:38:00 2016, gautam, Update, COC, RC folding mirrors - Numerical review   
|
Wed Aug 17 14:37:36 2016, gautam, Update, COC, RC folding mirrors - Numerical review
|
Wed Aug 17 16:28:46 2016, Koji, Update, COC, RC folding mirrors - Numerical review
|
Mon Nov 21 15:34:24 2016, gautam, Update, COC, RC folding mirrors - updated specs
|
Thu Feb 23 10:59:53 2017, gautam, Update, COC, RC folding mirrors - coating optimization    
|
Tue Mar 14 10:56:33 2017, gautam, Update, COC, RC folding mirrors - coating optimization   
|
Mon Apr 10 15:37:11 2017, gautam, Update, COC, RC folding mirrors - v3 of specs uploaded 8x
|
|
Message ID: 12204
Entry time: Mon Jun 20 18:07:15 2016
In reply to: 12197
|
Author: |
gautam |
Type: |
Update |
Category: |
COC |
Subject: |
Contrast as a function of RoC of ETMX |
|
|
Quote: |
So, it seems that changing the ETMX for one of the spares will change the contrast defect from ~0.1% to 0.9%. True? Seems like that might be a big deal.
|
That is what the simulation suggests... I repeated the simulation for a PRFPMI configuration (i.e. no SRM, everything else as per the most up to date 40m numbers), and the conclusion is roughly the same - the contrast defect degrades from ~0.1% to ~1.4%... So I would say this is significant. I also attempted to see what the contribution of the asymmetry in loss in the arms is, by running over the simulation with the current loss numbers of 230ppm for Yarm and 484ppm for the X arm, split equally between the ITMs and ETMs for both cases, and then again with lossless arms - see attachment #1. While this is a factor, this plot seems to suggest that the RoC mismatch effect dominates the contrast defect... |
|
|