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  Wed Jul 21 18:08:35 2021, yehonathan, Update, Loss Measurement, Loss measurement 
    Reply  Thu Jul 22 16:06:10 2021, Paco, Update, Loss Measurement, Loss measurement 
       Reply  Sun Jul 25 20:41:47 2021, rana, Update, Loss Measurement, Loss measurement 
          Reply  Mon Jul 26 17:34:23 2021, Paco, Update, Loss Measurement, Loss measurement LossMeasurement_RawData.pdfYARM_loss_stats.pdfXARM_loss_stats.pdf
Message ID: 16254     Entry time: Thu Jul 22 16:06:10 2021     In reply to: 16253     Reply to this: 16256
Author: Paco 
Type: Update 
Category: Loss Measurement 
Subject: Loss measurement 

[yehonathan, anchal, paco, gautam]

We concluded estimating the XARM and YARM losses. The hardware configuration from yesterday remains, but we repeated the measurements because we realized our REFL55_I_ERR and REFL55_Q_ERR signals representing the PD520 and MC_TRANS were scaled, offset, and rotated in a way that wasn't trivially undone by our postprocessing scripts... Another caveat that we encountered today was the need to add a "macroscopic" misalignment to the ITMs when doing the measurement to avoid any accidental resonances.

The final measurements were done with 16 repetitions, 30 second duration, and the logfiles are under scripts/lossmap_scripts/armLoss/logs/20210722_1423.txt and scripts/lossmap_scripts/armLoss/logs/20210722_1513.txt

Finally, the estimated YARM loss is 39\pm7 ppm, while the estimated XARM loss is 38\pm8 ppm. This is consistent with the inferred PRC gain from Monday and a PRM loss of ~ 2%.


Future measurements may want to look into slow drift of the locked vs misaligned traces (systematic errors?) and a better way of estimating the statistical uncertainty (e.g. by splitting the raw time traces into short segments)

ELOG V3.1.3-