|
40m
QIL
Cryo_Lab
CTN
SUS_Lab
TCS_Lab
OMC_Lab
CRIME_Lab
FEA
ENG_Labs
OptContFac
Mariner
WBEEShop
|
| 40m Log |
Not logged in |
 |
|
|
 Tue Dec 10 15:13:55 2013, Koji, Update, IOO, IMC servo inspection
|
 Thu Dec 12 14:57:01 2013, Koji, Update, IOO, IMC servo inspection 
| |
Fri Dec 13 18:03:00 2013, Den, Update, IOO, common mode servo
| |
Fri Dec 13 23:07:04 2013, Koji, Update, IOO, common mode servo
| |
Sat Dec 14 11:56:54 2013, rana, Update, LSC, common mode servo
| |
Sat Dec 14 14:21:46 2013, Den, Update, LSC, common mode servo
|
|
|
Message ID: 9468
Entry time: Fri Dec 13 18:03:00 2013
In reply to: 9457
Reply to this: 9470
9472
|
| Author: |
Den |
| Type: |
Update |
| Category: |
IOO |
| Subject: |
common mode servo |
|
|
| Quote: |
|
Well, let's see how the CM servo can handle this.
The key point here is that we have enough data to start the design of the CM servo.
|
It seems to me that current design of the common mode servo is already fine. Attached plots show common mode open and closed loop transfer function.
Frequency response of the servo is taken from the document D040180. I assumed coupled cavity pole to be ~100 Hz.
The only question is if our EOM has enough range. Boost 2 increases noise injection by 10 dB in the frequency range 20-50 kHz. Boost 3 has even higher factor. |
|
|
|
|