40m
QIL
Cryo_Lab
CTN
SUS_Lab
TCS_Lab
OMC_Lab
CRIME_Lab
FEA
ENG_Labs
OptContFac
Mariner
WBEEShop
|
40m Log |
Not logged in |
 |
|
Sat Jan 6 05:18:12 2018, Kevin, Update, PonderSqueeze, Displacement requirements for short-term squeezing 
|
Sat Jan 6 13:47:32 2018, rana, Update, PonderSqueeze, Displacement requirements for short-term squeezing
|
Sat Jan 6 23:25:18 2018, Kevin, Update, PonderSqueeze, Displacement requirements for short-term squeezing  
|
Sun Jan 7 03:22:24 2018, Koji, Update, PonderSqueeze, Displacement requirements for short-term squeezing
|
Sun Jan 7 11:40:58 2018, Kevin, Update, PonderSqueeze, Displacement requirements for short-term squeezing
|
Sun Jan 7 17:27:13 2018, gautam, Update, PonderSqueeze, Displacement requirements for short-term squeezing
|
Sun Jan 7 20:11:54 2018, Koji, Update, PonderSqueeze, Displacement requirements for short-term squeezing
|
Thu May 3 00:42:38 2018, Kevin, Update, PonderSqueeze, Coil driver contribution to squeezing noise budget
|
|
Message ID: 13515
Entry time: Sun Jan 7 20:11:54 2018
In reply to: 13514
Reply to this: 13808
|
Author: |
Koji |
Type: |
Update |
Category: |
PonderSqueeze |
Subject: |
Displacement requirements for short-term squeezing |
|
|
In fact, that is my point. If we use signal recycling instead of resonant sideband extraction, the "tuning" of the SRC is opposite to the current setup. We need to change the macro length of the SRC to make 55MHz resonant with this tuning. And if we make the SRC macro length together with the PRC macro length for this reason, we need to thing again about the mode matching. Fortunately, we have the spare PRM (T=5%) which matches with this curvature. This was the motivation of my question. We may also choose to keep the current SRM because of its higher T and may want to evaluate the effect of expected mode mismatch. |