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 Apr 3 14:46:17 2013, Gabriele, Summary, LSC, Error signal simulation in PRMI 14x
    Reply  Tue May 7 16:21:01 2013, Jenne, Summary, LSC, Error signal simulation in PRMI 8x
Message ID: 8401     Entry time: Wed Apr 3 14:46:17 2013     Reply to this: 8537
Author: Gabriele 
Type: Summary 
Category: LSC 
Subject: Error signal simulation in PRMI 

Here is a summary of a simulation of the error signal behavior in the PRMI configuration. The main parameters are:
L_PRC = 6.7538 m
Schnup = 0.0342 m
fmod1 = 11.065399e6 Hz
fmod2 = 5 * fmod1

prmi_prclsweep_pop22.pngprmi_prclsweep_pop110.png

These two plots shows the response of the POP22 and POP110 signals (in almost arbitrary units) to a PRCL sweep around the resonance. The splitting of the 55 sideband peaks is well visible in the second plot. It is due to the fact that the 55MHz sidebands are not perfectly matched to the PRC length

prmi_michsweep_pop22.pngprmi_michsweep_pop110.png

The same thing when sweeping MICH. The peaks are wider and it is not possible to see the splitting.

prmi_prclsweep_errsig_not_tunedphase.pngprmi_michsweep_errsig_not_tunedphase.png

These are the error signals (REFL11_I/Q and REFL_55_I/Q) as a function of the PRCL (left) and MICH (right) sweep. Here the demodulation phases are not properly tuned. This is just to show that when the phase is wrong, you can get multiple zero crossings (in this case only in the Q signals, but in general also in I) close to resonance.

prmi_prclsweep_errsig_tunedphase.pngprmi_michsweep_errsig_tunedphase.png

If the phases are tuned in order to maximize the slope of the I signals with respect to PRCL, one gets these "optimized phase" responses. It is that the phase does not correspond to the one that makes the PRCL peak to peak signal small in Q. The Q signals are indeed flat around resonance for a PRCL motion, but they deviate quite a lot from zero when moving more far from resonance. Moreover, both the REFL_55 error signals (I for PRCL and Q for MICH) are crossing again zero at two additional positions, but those are quite far from the resonance point.

prmi_prclsweep_triggering.pngprmi_michsweep_triggering.png

These plots just show the PRCL and MICH error signals together with the POP22 and POP110 signals, to give an idea of the level of triggering that might be needed to be inside the linear range. It seems that if we trigger on POP22 when using the REFL55 signal we loose a bit of linear range, but not that much.

prmi_prclsweep_linearized_signals.pngprmi_michsweep_linearized_signals.png

If you reached this point it means you're really interested in this topic, or maybe you have nothing better to do... However, this plot shows the effect of linearization of the error signal, obtained dividing them by the proper POP22/110 signal. The linear range is increased, but unfortunately for the 55 signals, the additional zero crossing I was mentioning before creates two sharp features. Those are however quite outside the triggering region, so they should not be harmful.

Attachment 1: prmi_michsweep_pop22.png  13 kB  | Hide | Hide all
prmi_michsweep_pop22.png
Attachment 2: prmi_michsweep_pop110.png  14 kB  | Hide | Hide all
prmi_michsweep_pop110.png
ELOG V3.1.3-