Back in Gainesville in 1997, I learned how to do this using the chopper wheel. We had to make the assumption that the wheel's blade was moving horizontally during the time of the chop.

One advantage is that the repetitive slices reduces the random errors by a lot - you can trigger the scope and average. Another advantage is that you can download the average scope trace using USB, floppy, or ethernet instead of pencil and paper.

But, I never analyzed it in enough detail to see if there was some kind of nasty systematic error.

Koji and Kevin measured the vertical beam profile of the Innolight 2W laser at one point.

This data was taken with the laser crystal temperature at 25.04°C and the injection current at 2.092A.

The distance from the razor blade to the flat black face on the front of the laser was 13.2cm.

The data was fit to the function y(x)=a*erf(sqrt(x)*(x-x0)/w)+b with the following results.

Reduced chi squared = 14.07

x0 = (1.964 +- 0.002) mm

w  = (0.216 +- 0.004) mm

a  = (3.39  +- 0.03) V

b  = (3.46  +- 0.03) V

Zach and Koji

We measured uncalibrated angle-to-length coupling using tdssine and tdsdmd.
We made a simple shell script to measure the a2l coupling.

Details:

- Opened the IMC/OMC light door.

- Saw the large misalignment mostly in pitch. Aligned using MC2 and MC3.

- Locked the MC in the low power mode. (script/MC/mcloopson AND MC length gain 0.3->1.0)

- Further aligned MC2/3. We got the transmission of 0.16, reflection of 0.2

- Tried to detect angle-to-length coupling so that we get the diagnosis of the spot positions.

- Tried to use ezcademod. Failed. They seems excite the mirror  but returned NaN.

- We used tdssine and tdsdmd instead. Succeeded.

- We made simple shell script to measure the a2l coupling. It is so far located users/koji/100421/MCspot

- We blocked the beam on the PSL table. We closed the chamber and left.

Alberto and myself went to downs and acquired the 3rd 4x processor (Dual core, so 8x cores total) computer.  We also retrieved 6 BIO interface boards (blue front thin boxes), 4 DAC interface boards, and 1 ADC interface boards.  The tops have not been put on yet, but we have the tops and a set of screws for them.  For the moment, these things have been placed behind the 1Y6 rack and under the table behind the 1Y5 rack

.

The 6 BIO boards have LIGO travelers associated with them: SN LIGO-S1000217 through SN LIGO-S1000222.

The 3 seismometers are now on the granite slab.  The Ranger is now aligned with the Xarm (perpendicular to the Mode Cleaner) since that's the only way all 3 would fit on the slab.

This is mostly a reminder to myself about what I discussed with Jay and Alex this morning.

The big black IO chassis are "almost" done.  Except for the missing parts.  We have 2 Dolphin, 1 Large and 1 Small I/O Chassis due to us.  One Dolphin is effectively done and is sitting in the test stand.  However, 2 are missing timing boards, and 3 are missing the boards necessary for the connection to the computer.  The parts were ordered a long time ago, but its possible they were "sucked to one of the sites" by Rolf (remember this is according to Jay).  They need to either track them down in Downs (possibly they're floating around and were just confused by the recent move), get them sent back from the sites, or order new ones (I was told by one person that the place they order from them notoriously takes a long time, sometimes up to 6 weeks.  I don't know if this is exaggeration or not...).  Other than the missing parts, they still need to wire up the fans and install new momentary power switches (apparently the Dolphin boards want momentary on/off buttons).  Otherwise, they're done.

We are due another CPU, just need to figure out which one it was in the test stand.

6 more BIO boards are done.  When I went over the plans with Jay, we realized we needed 7 more, not 6, so they're putting another one together.  Some ADC/DAC interface boards are done.  I promised to do another count here, to determine how many we have, how many we need, and then report that back to Jay before I steal the ones which are complete.  Unfortunately, he did not have a new drawing for the ASC/vertex wiring, so we don't have a solid count of stuff needed for them.  I'll be taking a look at the old drawings and also looking at what we physically have.

I did get Jay to place the new LSC wiring diagram into the DCC (which apparently the old one never was put in or we simply couldn't find it).  Its located at: https://dcc.ligo.org/cgi-bin/private/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=10985

I talked briefly with Alex, reminded him of feature requests and added a new one:

1) Single part representing a matrix of filter banks

2) Automatic generation of Simulated shared memory locations and an overall on/off switch for ADC/DACs

3) Individual excitation and test point pieces (as opposed to having to use a full filter bank).  He says these already exist, so when I do the CVS checkout, I'll see if they work.

I also asked where the adl default files lived, and he pointed me at ~/cds/advLigo/src/epics/util/

In that directory are FILTER.adl, GDS_TP.adl, MONITOR.adl.  Those are the templates.  We also discovered the timing signal at some point was changed from something like SYS-DCU_ID to FEC-DCU_ID, so I basically just need to modify the .adl files to fix the time stamp channel as well.  I basically need to do a CVS checkout, put the fixes in, then commit back to the CVS.  Hopefully I can do that sometime today.

I also brought over 9 Contec DO-32L-PE boards, which are PCIe isolated digital output boards which do into the IO chassis.  These have been placed above the 2 new computers, behind the 1Y6 rack.

Theoretically the waist position of a Gaussian beam (1064) in our PPKTP crystal differs by ~6.7 mm from that of the incident Gaussian beam.

So far I have neglected such position change of the beam waist in optical layouts because it is tiny compared with the entire optical path.

But from the point of view of practical experiments, it is better to think about it.

In fact the result suggests the rough positioning of our PPKTP crystals;

we should put our PPKTP crystal so that the center of the crystal is 6.7 mm far from the waist of a Gaussian beam in free space.

(How to)

The calculation is very very simple.

The waist position of a Gaussian beam propagating in a dielectric material should change by a factor of n, where n is the refractive index of the material.

In our case, PPKTP has  n=1.8, so that the waist position from the surface of the crystal becomes longer by n.

Now remember the fact that the maximum conversion efficiency can be achieved if the waist locates at exact center of a crystal.

Therefore the waist position in the crystal should be satisfied this relation; z*n=15 mm, where z is the waist position of the incident beam from the surface and 15 mm is half length of our crystal.

Then we can find z must be ~8.3 mm, which is 6.7 mm shorter than the position in crystal.

The attached figure shows the relation clearly. Note that the waist radius doesn't change.

Koji and Kevin measured the output power vs injection current for the Innolight 2W laser.

The threshold current is 0.75 A.

The following data was taken with the laser crystal temperature at 25.04ºC (dial setting: 0.12).

Beautiful fitting.

Quote:

EDIT: I used an IFIT (inverse fast idiot transform) to change the x-axis of the plot from Hz to m. I think xlabel('Frequency [Hz]') is in my muscle memory now.. I have redone the beam fit, this time omitting the M2, which I believe was superfluous. I have made the requested changes to the plot, save for the error analysis, which I am still trying to work out (the function I used for the least squares fit does not work out standard error in fit parameters). I will figure out a way to do this and amend the plot to have error bars.

[Jenne, Steve]

We removed the old SRM and PRM from their cages, and are temporarily storing them in the rings which we use to hold the optics while baking.  Steve will work on a way to store them more permanently.

We then hung the new SRM (SRMU03) and new PRM (SRMU04) in the cages.  We were careful not to break the wires, so the heights will not have changed from the old heights.

The optics have not been balanced yet.  That will hopefully happen later this week.

Quote:

I have redone the beam fit, this time omitting the M2, which I believe was superfluous. I have made the requested changes to the plot, save for the error analysis, which I am still trying to work out (the function I used for the least squares fit does not work out standard error in fit parameters). I will figure out a way to do this and amend the plot to have error bars.

 Are you sure about your x-axis label? 

EDIT: I used an IFIT (inverse fast idiot transform) to change the x-axis of the plot from Hz to m. I think xlabel('Frequency [Hz]') is in my muscle memory now..

I have redone the beam fit, this time omitting the M², which I believe was superfluous. I have made the requested changes to the plot, save for the error analysis, which I am still trying to work out (the function I used for the least squares fit does not work out standard error in fit parameters). I will figure out a way to do this and amend the plot to have error bars.

 I restarted the elog with the restart script as it was down.

 Here is Crystal 724 polished side 2 with all photos along the length stitched together

The 40m's new undergrad Kevin Kuns was introduced to 40m safety hazards. He is new and needs guidance as specially with 2W laser work.

Peter King will train him on Friday to LIGO-laser standard.

ETMY sus damping was restored

We found ref-cavity HV was off yesterday afternoon. It was turned back on.

 The Guralp Box appears to be back in working order.  It's reinstalled with the 2 seismometers plugged in.

In order:

* Koji suggested retouching the through-board solder joints on the broken channel (EW2 = Gur2X) with a bit of solder to ensure the connections were good.  Check.

* "C7", one of the giant 1uF capacitors on each channel is totally bypassed, and since that was one of the original suspects, Rana removed the (possibly) offending capacitor from EW2.

* Rana and I isolated the craziness to the final differential output stage.  We tried each of the testpoints after the individual gain / filter stages, and found that the signals were all fine, until after the output stage.

* I started to remove the resistors in the output stage (with the plan to go through the resistors, capacitors, and even the amplifier chip if neccessary), and noticed that 2 of the 1k resistors came off too easily, as if they were just barely connected in the first place.  After replacing only the 4 1k resistors, the craziness seemed to be gone.  I poked and gently bent the board, but the output wouldn't go crazy.  I declared victory.

* I reinstalled the box in its normal spot, and put Gur2 (which had been out by the bench for use as a test signal) back next to the other seismometers.  We are in nominal condition, and should be able to do a huddle test this week.

I looked at the time traces of all the seismometer channels, and they all looked good.  I'll put a spectra in in the morning....I'm too impatient to wait around for the low frequency FFTs.

Attached are the before and after pictures of the output stage of EW2 / Gur2X.  The "before" is the one with the OUT+ and OUT- words upsidedown.  The "after" picture has them right side up.

Koji and Kevin

We unpacked the Innolight 2W laser, took an inventory, and scanned the operations manual.

[Edit by KA]

The scanned PDFs are placed on the following wiki page

http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/Upgrade_09/PSL

We will measure the P-I curve, the mode profile, frequency actuator responses, and so on.

Jenne, Koji and I opened up the package from Raicol and examined the crystals under the microscope. The results were mixed and are summarized below. There are quite a few scratches and there is residue on some of the polished sides. There is a large chip in one and there appear to be gaps or bands in the AR coatings on the sides.

There are two albums on Picassa

1. The package is opened ...

2. The crystals under the microscope.

I went to Ottavia, and tried running yum update.  It was having dependancy issues with mjpegtools, which was a rpmforge provided package.  In order to get it to update, I moved the rpmforge priority above (a lower number) that of epel ( epel -> 20 from 10, rpmforge -> 10 to 20).  This resolved the problem and the updates proceeded (all 434 of them). yum update on Ottavia now reports nothing needs to be done.

I went to Rosalba and found rpmfusion repositories enabled.  The only one of the 3 repositories in each file enabled was the first one.

I then added priority listing to all the repositories on Rosalba.  I set CentOS-Base and related to priority=1.  I set CentOS-Media.repo priority to 1 (although it is disabled - just to head off future problems). I set all epel related to priorities to 20. I set all rpmforge related priorities to 10.  I set all rpmfusion related priorities to 30, and left the first repo in rpmfusion-free-updates and rpmfusion-nonfree-updates were enabled.  All other rpmfusion testing repositories were disabled by me.

I then had to by hand downgrade expat to expat-1.95.8-8.3.el5_4.2.x86_64 (the rpmforge version).  I also removed and reinstalled x264.x86_64.  Lastly I removed and reinstalled lyx. yum update was then run and completed successfully.

I installed yum-priorities on Allegra and made all CentOS-Base repositories priority 1. I similarly made the still disabled CentOS-Media priority 1.  I made all epel related repos priority 20.  I made all lscsoft repos priority=50 (not sure why its on Allegra and none of the other ones).  I made all rpmforge priorities 10.  I then ran "yum update" which updated 416 packages.

So basically all the Centos control room machines are now using the following order for repositories:

CentOS-Base > rpmforge > epel > (rpmfusion - rosalba only) > lscsoft (allegra only)

I'm not sure if rpmfusion and lscsoft are necessary, but I've left them for now.  This should mean "yum update" will have far fewer problems in the future.

There is a clearly a difference in the divergence angle of the x and y beams - maybe 10-20%. Since the measurements are outside the Rayleigh range and approximately in the linear regime, the slope of the divergence in this plot should be inversely proportional to the waists - meaning the x- and y- waist sizes should differ by about 10-20%. You should check your fitting program for the waist.

Frank noticed that this particular SR560 had an offset on the output which was unzeroable by the usual method of tuning the trim pot accessible through the front panel.

I tried to zero the offset using the trimpots inside, but it became clear that the offset was due to a damaged FET, so Steve ordered ~20 of the (now obsolete*) NPD5564.

I replaced this part and adjusted the offsets and balanced the CMRR of the differential inputs mostly according to the manual (p. 17). There are a few notes that should be added to the procedure:

1. It can sometimes be that the gain proscribed by the manual is too high and saturates the output for large offsets. If that's the case, simply lower the gain, trim the offset, then return the gain to the specified value and trim again.
2. The limit in trimming the offset is the stick slip resolution in the trim pot. This can potentially leave the whole preamp in an acoustically sensitive state. I tapped the pots with a screwdriver after tuning to make sure it was in more of a 'sticky' rather than 'slippy' region of the knob. A better design would allow for more filtering of the pot.
3. In the CMRR tuning procedure it says to 'null sine wave output' but it should really say 'null the sine wave component at the drive frequency'. The best CMRR tuning uses a 1 kHz drive and leaves a residual 2 kHz signal due to the distortion imbalance (of the FETs I think).
4. The CMRR tuning upsets the DC offset trim and vice versa. The best tuning is gotten by iterating slightly (go back and forth once or twice between the offset and CMRR tuning procedures).

It looks like its working fine now. Steve's ordering some IF3602 (low-noise, balanced FET pair from Interfet) to see if we can drop the SR560's input noise to the sub-nV level.

Noise measured with the input terminated with a BNC short (not 50 Ohms) G=100, DC coupled, low-noise mode:

In order to measure the transfer function of the RC cavity's foam, I've turned off the servo so that the room temperature noise can excite it.

The attached plot shows a step response test from 2 weeks ago. Servo is nominally still working fine.

NOTE: This measurement is wrong and only remains for documentation purposes.

Koji asked me to take a profile of the output of the 1W NPRO that will be used for green locking. I used the razor-scan method, plotting the voltage output of a PD vs the position of the razor across the beam, both vertically and horizontally. This was done at 6 points along the beam path out of the laser box.

I determined the beam spot size at each point by doing a least-squares fit on the plots above in Matlab (using w as one of the fitting parameters) to the cumulative distribution functions (error functions) they should approximate.

I then did another least-squares fit, fitting the above "measured" beam profiles to the gaussian form for w vs z. Below is a summary.

It seems reasonable, though I know that M² < 1 is fishy, as it implies less divergence than ideal for that waist size. Also, like Koji feared, the waist is inside the box and thus the scan is almost entirely in the linear regime.

Steve and Koji

We aligned the peeping mirrors to look at the surface of the ITMs.
They had been misligned as we move the positions of the ITMs, but now they are fine.

I pulled the Guralp breakout box from the rack, and it's sitting on the EE bench here.  The game plan is to check out the Gur2X channel.  

Rana and Steve have been investigating, and found that the X channel has been funky (which has been known for ~a month or two) when the seismometer has been plugged in, and also when the seismometers have been unplugged, but the box is left on.  The funkyness goes away when the box is turned off.  Since it's not there when the box is off, it seems that it's not a problem with the cable from the box to the ADC, or in the ADC channel.  Since it is there when the box is on, but the seismometer is unplugged, it's clear that it's probably in the box itself.  

Preliminarily, I've connected a set of BNC clipdoodles to the input testpoints, and another set to the output.  They're both connected to a 'scope (which is on it's battery so it's not connected to any Ground), and when I tap on the circuit board the input trace is totally unchanged, but the output trace goes kind of crazy, and gets more fuzzy, and picks up a DC offset.  Koji is concerned that some of the big capacitors may have an iffy connection to the board. 

Investigations will continue Monday morning. 

The 1979 vintage RF spectrum analyzer HP4195A  sn2904J01587 shipped out  for repair today to http://www.avalontest.com

It has a 25 MHZ oscillation when you go  below 150 MHZ in your sweep....atm1 with the larger amplitude shows this 25 MHZ

Atm2 is displaying  full sweep-sign scans from 1 to 500 MHZ.....here one can clearly see the three segment of the scan:

1, large amplitude 25 MHZ oscillation dominating the spectrum up to 150 MHZ

2, the mid section from 150 MHZ  to 300 MHZ with medium size amplitude is normal

3, from 300 MHZ to 500 MHZ the amplitude is decreasing.......showing the disadvantage of using a 300 MHZ oscilloscope

Bob, Steve, and Koji

We opened North heavy door of the BS chamber in the afternoon.

In the evening, Koji worked on the PRM/SRM removal.

- Cleaned up the OPLEV mirrors to create some spaces near the door.

- Clamped PRM/SRM.

- Removed OSEMs. Made a record of the OSEMs. The record is on the wiki (http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/Upgrade_09/Suspensions)

- Found the SOSs are quite easy to remove from the table as they are shorter than the MOSs.

- Put a new Al sheet on a wagon. Put the SOSs on it. Wrapped them by the Al foils.

- Carried it to the clean room. They are on the right flow bench. Confirmed the wires are still fine.

- Closed up the chamber putting a light door.

 I redid the PZT Phase Modulation measurement out to 5 MHz for both the Innolight and the Lightwave.  The previous measurement stopped at 2MHz, and we wanted to see if there were any sweet spots above 2MHz.  I also reduced the sweep bandwidth and increased the source amplitude at high frequency to reduce the noise (the Lighwave measurement, especially, was noise dominated above 1MHz).  I also plotted the ratio of PM/AM in rad/RIN, since this is the ultimate criterion on which we want to make a determination.

It looks like there is nothing extremely useful above 2MHz for either laser.  There are several candidates for the lightwave at about 140 kHz and again at about 1.4 MHz.  The most compelling peak, however, is in the innolight at 216 kHz, where the peak is about 2.3e5 rad/RIN.

Below about 30kHz, the loop suppresses the measurement, so one should focus on the region above there.

 To prevent this confusion in the future, at Koji's suggestion I've created a Makefile.no_parse_mdl in /home/controls/cds/advLIGO on megatron.  The normal makefile is the original one (with correct parsing now).  So the correct procedure is:

1) "make yep"

2) Modify yep.c code

3) "make -f Makefile.no_parse_mdl yep"

Please put those numbers onto wiki somewhere at the green page or laser characterization page.

Koji

ITMX was aligned with regard to the 40m green oplev.
Now both cavities are aligned.

Next thing we are going to do is to remove PRM and SRM towers.

As well as the oplev construction for ITMs.

We anticipate the drift of the stack. So we need to revisit the alignment again.

Some tools and the level gauge were removed from the table.

Picture of the ETMX - reflection from the ITMX is hitting the mirror and Jamie's windmill.

0. The suspension tower had been placed on the table close to the door.

1. Brought the OSEMs from the clean room. Connected the satellite box to the ITMX suspension.

2. Went into the chamber. Leveled the table.

3. Released the mirror from the clamp. Put and adjust the OSEMs.

- Note that the side OSEM is located to the south side of the tower
  so that we can still touch it after the placement of the TT suspension at the north side of the SOS tower.

4. Clamped the mirror. Moved the SOS tower according to the CAD layout.

5. Leveled the table again.

6. Released the mirror again and adjusted the OSEMs.

7. Turned on the end green laser pointer.

- The spot was slightly upside and left of the mirror. Adjusted it so that the spot is at the center.

8. Align ITMX in Pitch

- The spot was hitting the tube. Moved the pitch bias such that the beam get horizontal.

9. Align ITMX in Yaw

- Moved the SOS tower such that the approximate spot is on the ETMX. If I hit the right spot I could see the tube get grown green because of the huge scatter.

10. Adjusted the OSEMs again and check the alignment again. Repeated this process 2~3 times.

- Bias values at  the end of the work: Pitch 0.7800 / Yaw 0.270

11. Close up the chamber

- Remove the level gauge. Some of the screws are still in the Al ship in the chamber.

- Close the light door.

Data looks perfect ... but the fitting was wrong.

Vn = Vdn + Z * sqrt( 2 e Idc ) ==> WRONG!!!

Dark noise and shot noise are not correlated. You need to take a quadratic sum!!!

Vn^2 = Vdn^2 + Z^2 *(2 e Idc)

And I was confused whether you need 2 in the sqrt, or not. Can you explain it?
Note that you are looking at the raw RF output of the PD and not using the demodulated output... 

Also you should be able to fit Vdn. You should put your dark noise measurement at 10nA or 100nA and then make the fitting.

 Same thing for the Innolight Mephisto.

Not unexpected values with dn/dT around 11E-6 K^-1 and coefficient of thermal expansion = 8E-6 K^-1 and a laser resonator length of order 10cm.

The beams from the Innolight and Lightwave NPROs were both incident on a 1GHZ New Focus PD. Mott and I swept the temperature of the Lightwave and tracked the change in frequency of the beatnote between the two. The Innolight temperature was set to 39.61C although the actual temperature was reported to be 39.62C.

Freq. vs temperature is plotted below in the attached PDF. The slope is 2.8GHz/K.

The data is in the attached MATLAB file.

 The elog crashed when I was uploading a photo just now. I logged into nodus and restarted it.

Currently, the y end plant is yep.mdl.  In order to compile it properly (for the moment at least) requires running the normal makefile, then commenting out the line in the makefile which does the parsing of the mdl, and rerunning after modifying the /cds/advLigo/src/fe/yep/yep.c file.

The modifications to the yep.c file are to change the six lines that look like:

"plant_mux[0] = plant_gndx"  into lines that look like "plant_mux[0] = plant_delayx".  You also have to add initialization of the plant_delayx type variables to zero in the if(feInt) section, near where plant_gndx is set to zero.

This is necessary to get the position feedback within the plant model to work properly.

#NOTE by Koji

CAUTION:
This entry means that Makefile was modified not to parse the mdl file.
This affects making any of the models on megatron.

 Here's another measurement of the noise of the REFL11 PD.

This time I made the fit constraining the Dark Noise. I realized that it didn't make much sense leaving it as a free coefficient: the dark noise is what it is.

Result: the transimpedance of REFL11at 11 MHz is about 4000 Ohm.

All the details and data will be included in the wiki page (and so also the results for AS55). Here I just show the comparison of the transfer functions that I measured and that I modeled.

I applied an approximate calibration to the data so that all the measurements would refer to the transfer function of Vout / PD Photocurrent. Here's how they look like. (also the calibration will be explained in the wiki)

.

The ratio between the amplitude of the 55Mhz modulation over the 11MHz is ~ 90dB

The electronics TF doesn't provide a faithful reproduction of the optical response.

I measured a jitter modulation caused by injection of a signal into laser PZTs.

The measurement has been done by putting a razor blade in the middle way of the beam path to cut the half of the beam spot, so that a change of intensity at a photodetector represents the spatial jitter of the beam.

However the transfer function looked almost the same as that of amplitude modulation which had been taken by Mott (see the entry).

This means the data is dominated by the amplitude modulation instead of the jitter. So I gave up evaluating the data of the jitter measurement.

One dell is in the clean room for the suspension work.

I can't find the DELL laptop anywhere in the lab. Does anyone know where it is?

Also one of the two netbooks is missing.

 1) True. My bad. In my elog entry (but not in my fit code) I forgot the impedance Z= 750Ohm (as in the fit) of the resonant circuit in front of the square root: Vn = Vdn + Z * sqrt( 2 e Idc )

2) That is exactly the point I was raising! The measured dark noise at resonance is 2x what I expect.

I also admitted that the data points were few, especially around the 3dB point.

Today I'm going to repeat the measurement with a new setup that lets me tune the light intensity more finely.

Something must be wrong. 

1. Physical Unit is wrong for the second term of "Vn = Vdn + Sqrt(2 e Idc)"

2. Why does the fit go below the dark noise?

3. "Dark noise 4 +/- NaN nV/rtHz"   I can not accept this fitting.

Also apparently the data points are not enough.

Putting my hands ahead, I know I could have taken more measurements around the 3dB point, but the 40m needs the PDs soon.

From the measurements of the 11 MHz RFPD at 11Mhz I estimated a transimpedance of about 750 Ohms. (See attached plot.)

The fit shown in the plot is: Vn = Vdn + sqrt(2*e*Idc) ; Vn=noise; Vdn=darknoise; e=electron charge; Idc=dc photocurrent

The estimate from the fit is 3-4 times off from my analsys of the circuit and from any LISO simulation. Likely at RF the contributions of the parassitic components of each element make a big difference. I'm going to improve the LISO model to account for that.

The problem of the factor of 2 in the data turned out to be not a real one. Assuming that the dark noise at resonance is just Johnson's noise from the resonant circuit transimpedance underestimates the dark noise by 100%.

What??? I don't see any gray trace of Rs in the plot. What are you talking about?

Anyway, if you are true, the circuit is bad as the noise should only be dominated by the thermal noise of the resonant circuit.