40m
QIL
Cryo_Lab
CTN
SUS_Lab
TCS_Lab
OMC_Lab
CRIME_Lab
FEA
ENG_Labs
OptContFac
Mariner
WBEEShop
|
40m Log |
Not logged in |
 |
|
Thu Nov 7 14:39:49 2013, Jenne, Update, LSC, Lock Acquisition Game Plan
|
Fri Nov 8 18:12:21 2013, Jenne, Update, LSC, PRFPMI: Not crossing any resonances 
|
Tue Nov 12 16:49:22 2013, Jenne, Update, LSC, Xend QPD and Whitening board pulled   
|
Wed Nov 20 17:05:15 2013, Jenne, Update, LSC, Xend QPD and Whitening board replaced
|
Wed Dec 18 00:26:15 2013, Jenne, Update, LSC, Xend QPD schematic investigation
|
Wed Dec 18 11:32:34 2013, rana, Update, LSC, Xend QPD schematic investigation
|
Wed Nov 13 01:35:40 2013, Jenne, Update, LSC, PRM motion causing trouble? 
|
Wed Nov 13 09:31:15 2013, Gabriele, Update, LSC, PRM motion causing trouble?
|
Wed Nov 13 19:22:58 2013, Jenne, Update, LSC, PRM motion correlated to intracavity power 
|
Thu Nov 14 02:50:43 2013, Jenne, Update, LSC, PRM oplev measured and modeled TF  
|
Mon Nov 18 21:02:54 2013, Jenne, Update, LSC, PRM oplev measured and modeled TF 
|
Mon Nov 18 21:40:24 2013, Koji, Update, LSC, PRM oplev measured and modeled TF
|
Tue Nov 19 14:47:44 2013, Jenne, Update, LSC, PRM oplev measured and modeled TF
|
Thu Nov 14 02:55:26 2013, rana, Update, SUS, PRM motion correlated to intracavity power
|
Thu Nov 14 11:41:19 2013, Steve, Update, SUS, PRM sensors effected by IR
|
Thu Nov 14 14:35:12 2013, Steve, Update, SUS, IR effect on MC and PRM sensors
|
Fri Dec 6 10:03:07 2013, Steve, Update, SUS, IR effect on MC sensors only 
|
|
Message ID: 9373
Entry time: Wed Nov 13 09:31:15 2013
In reply to: 9371
Reply to this: 9378
|
Author: |
Gabriele |
Type: |
Update |
Category: |
LSC |
Subject: |
PRM motion causing trouble? |
|
|
Interesting results. When you compute the effect of ETM motion, you maybe should also consider that moving around the arm cavity axis changes the matching of the input beam with the cavity, and thus the coupling between PRC and arms. But I believe this effect is of the same order of the one you computed, so maybe there is only one or two factors of two to add. This do not change significantly the conclusion.
Instead, the numbers you're giving for PRM motion are interesting. Since I almost never believe computations before I see that an experiment agrees with them, I suggest that you try to prove experimentally your statement. The simplest way is to use a scatter plot as I suggested the past week: you plot the carrier arm power vs PRM optical lever signals in a scatter plot. If there is no correlation between the two motions, you should see a round fuzzy ball in the plot. Otherwise, you will se some non trivial shape. Here is an example: https://tds.ego-gw.it/itf/osl_virgo/index.php?callRep=18918
|