40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  OMC elog  Not logged in ELOG logo
Entry  Sun Sep 23 19:42:21 2018, Koji, Optics, General, Montecarlo simulation of the phase difference between P and S pols for a modeled HR mirror reflectivities.pngtransmission.pngphase_diff.pngphase_difference_histogram.png
    Reply  Thu Sep 27 20:19:15 2018, Aaron, Optics, General, Montecarlo simulation of the phase difference between P and S pols for a modeled HR mirror 
       Reply  Thu Nov 1 19:57:32 2018, Aaron, Optics, General, Montecarlo simulation of the phase difference between P and S pols for a modeled HR mirror 
Message ID: 310     Entry time: Thu Nov 1 19:57:32 2018     In reply to: 309
Author: Aaron 
Type: Optics 
Category: General 
Subject: Montecarlo simulation of the phase difference between P and S pols for a modeled HR mirror 

I'm still not satisfied/done with the solution to this, but this has gone too long without an update and anyway probably someone else will have a direction to take it that prevents me spinning my wheels on solved or basic questions.

The story will have to wait to be on the elog, but I've put it in the jupyter notebook. Basically:

  • I considered the polarization-separated OMC in several configurations. I have plots of DARM referred noise (measured free-running and controlled noise for the current OMC, thermal theoretical noise curve, scattered light) for the case of such an OMC with one lambda/2 waveplate oriented at 45 degrees. This is the base case.
  • I also considered such an OMC with a lambda/2 both before and after the OMC, where their respective polarization axes can be arbitrary (I look at parameter space near the previous case's values).
    • I optimize the BHD angle to balance the homodyne (minimize the E_LO^2 term in the homodyne readout).
    • I then optimize the rotations of the lambda/2 polarization axes to minimize the noise
    • For the optimum that is closest to the base case, I also plotted DARM referred length noise.

 

It's clear to me that there is a way to optimize the OMC, but the normalization of my DARM referred noise is clearly wrong, because I'm finding that the input-referred noise is at least 4e-11 m/rt(Hz). This seems too large to believe. 

Indeed, I was finding the noise in the wrong way, in a pretty basic mistake. I’m glad I found it I guess. I’ll post some plots and update the git tomorrow. 

ELOG V3.1.3-