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 Jun 17 17:09:44 2010, Alberto, Update, LSC, Short Cavity Length Adjustments 
    Reply  Fri Jun 18 13:47:20 2010, Koji, Update, LSC, Short Cavity Length Adjustments 
       Reply  Fri Jun 18 15:07:26 2010, Alberto, Update, LSC, Short Cavity Length Adjustments 
Message ID: 3084     Entry time: Thu Jun 17 17:09:44 2010     Reply to this: 3086
Author: Alberto 
Type: Update 
Category: LSC 
Subject: Short Cavity Length Adjustments 

I calculated the phase shifts that the sidebands would pick up in the arms in the case we changed the arm length to 38.4m as proposed. I obtained the following values (in degrees):

phi(-f2) = 0.66; phi(-f1) = -0.71; phi(f1) = 0.71; phi(+f2) = -0.66

These are the plots with the results as I obtained from an Optickle simulation (the second zooms in around 38.4m).

sidebandPhaseRotation_73430639654.png sidebandPhaseRotation_73430656054.png

These values agree with what Koji had already estimated (see elog entry 3023).

Since we can't make the arm longer than that, to increase the distance from the resonance, we would like to adjust the length of the short cavities to compensate for that.  For f2 (=55MHz), 0.7 degrees correspond to about 5cm. That is about the length change that we expect to make to the design.

I simulated with Optickle the effect of changing the length of either the SRC or the PRC. The best way I found to do that, was to measure the cavity circulating power when the macroscopic lengths change.

The following plots show the effect of changing either the PRC or SRC length (left or right figure), on the circulating power of both cavities at the same time (top and bottom plots).

shortCavityCirculatingPower_73430666992.png prcCirculatingPower_73430665955.png

 You can compare these with the case of perfect antiresonance as in the following plots:

shortCavityCirculatingPower_73430668892.png shortCavityCirculatingPower_73430669604.png

It seems that the design length for the short cavities are not too bad. f1 is not optimized in the PRC, but changing the length of the cavity wold just make f2 worse in SRC.

These simulations seem to support the choice of not changing the design cavity lengths for PRC and SRC.

Of course these are only an "open loop" simulations. At the moment we don't know what would be the effect of closing the control loops. That is something I'm going to do later. It'll be part of my studies on the effects of cavity absolute length on the whole IFO.

ELOG V3.1.3-