|
40m
QIL
Cryo_Lab
CTN
SUS_Lab
CAML
OMC_Lab
CRIME_Lab
FEA
ENG_Labs
OptContFac
Mariner
WBEEShop
|
| 40m Log |
Not logged in |
 |
|
|
 Thu Apr 1 00:43:33 2010, Mott, Update, General, PZT response for the innolight 
|
 Thu Apr 1 07:17:15 2010, Koji, Update, General, PZT response for the innolight
| |
Thu Apr 1 10:21:58 2010, Mott, Update, General, PZT response for the innolight
| |
Thu Apr 1 10:47:48 2010, Koji, Update, General, PZT response for the innolight
| |
Thu Apr 1 12:07:22 2010, rana, Update, General, PZT response for the innolight
| |
Thu Apr 1 18:05:29 2010, Mott, Update, General, PZT response for the innolight
| |
Thu Apr 1 18:44:40 2010, Koji, Update, General, PZT response for the innolight
| |
Thu Apr 1 19:59:32 2010, Mott, Update, General, PZT response for the innolight
| |
Mon Apr 12 14:20:10 2010, kiwamu, Update, Green Locking, PZT response for the innolight
| |
Tue Apr 13 19:53:06 2010, Mott, Update, Green Locking, PZT response for the innolight and lightwave 6x
|
|
|
Message ID: 2754
Entry time: Thu Apr 1 18:05:29 2010
In reply to: 2750
Reply to this: 2755
|
| Author: |
Mott |
| Type: |
Update |
| Category: |
General |
| Subject: |
PZT response for the innolight |
|
|
We realized that we had measured the wrong calibration value; we were using the free-running error signal with the marconi far from the beat frequency, which was very small. When we put the Marconi right at the beat, the signal increased by a factor of ~12 (turning our original calibration of 10 mV/rad into 120 mV/rad). The re-calibrated plots are attached. |
|
|
|