I put in a new version of the modelled plot. I figured out a different way to keep things generic so the same script can be used for other sites, but writes the names in the same format as the measured matrix, so the correct order is preserved.
The REFL11 measurement is consistent with the one in elog 8648 (data taken a few days earlier), within the error bars. My goal for tonight is to hopefully get the POP path back in order, so that I can lock the PRMI again, and can measure again if I want.
The error bars for each sensor are only taken once (with no drive, so it's the noise in the "dark" sensor). I take 6 "dark" measurements for each sensor, and get the stdev. Then I use that and propagate it through for each measured sensing matrix element. So, the PRCL and MICH error bars for REFL11 were created from the same standard deviation, and propagated in the same way, but the values plugged into the partial derivative of the function were different for PRCL and MICH.
(wikipedia - propagation of uncertainties)
Also, to answer an emailed question via the elog, the "0 degree" axis of the plots is the 0 demod phase axis, which corresponds to the I output of the demod boards (the I input to the RFPDs, before the phase rotation). The "I" axis that I've drawn is the current demodulation phase that we have, which corresponds to the I_ERR output of the RFPDs after the phase rotation, which is the PD_I signal that goes into the LSC input matrix. I draw this to help us see if our current demod phase is well tuned or not.
Yes, the MICH and PRCL signals are not at all orthogonal in the REFL33 sensor. I think this is because our modulation frequency was chosen to be good in the case of the full DRFPMI IFO, not the corner IFO cavities. As I calculated in elog 8538, the ideal frequency for the PRMI is 18kHz larger than our current modulation frequency.
For the plots below, note that 11.066134 MHz is our current actual modulation frequency, and 11.0843 MHz is my calculated ideal modulation freq.
Model, using our current modulation frequency, and the designed PRCL cavity length (same as elog earlier today):
Model, using the "ideal" PRMI modulation freq, and the PRCL cavity length used in elog 8538, where I calculated that number (a few cm different than the design PRCL length):
You can see that if we could use a better frequency, we would get much, much better signal separation. Since our modulation frequency choice is related to our vacuum envelope constraints (we can't make the arms of a length that will have the sidebands exactly antiresonant when the arms are locked on the carrier), I hope that this will not be a significant issue in aLIGO.