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  Tue Mar 5 19:37:00 2013, Zach, Optics, Characterization, eLIGO OMC visibility vs. power measurement details eOMC_visibility_3_4_13.png
    Reply  Wed Mar 6 23:24:58 2013, Zach, Optics, Characterization, eLIGO OMC visibility vs. power measurement details TEK00005.PNGTEK00007.PNGeOMC_visibility_3_4_13.pngeOMC_AMTF_vs_power_3_6_13.png
Message ID: 68     Entry time: Wed Mar 6 23:24:58 2013     In reply to: 67
Author: Zach 
Type: Optics 
Category: Characterization 
Subject: eLIGO OMC visibility vs. power measurement details 

I found that, in fact, I had lowered the modulation depth since when I measured it to be 0.45 rads --> Psb = 0.1.

Here is the sweep measurement:

TEK00005.PNG TEK00007.PNG

This is Psb = 0.06 --> gamma = 0.35 rads.

This changes the "raw transmission" and "coupling", but not the inferred visibility:

eOMC_visibility_3_4_13.png

I also measured the cavity AMTF at three powers today: 0.5 mW, 10 mW, and 45 mW input.

eOMC_AMTF_vs_power_3_6_13.png

They look about the same. If anything, the cavity pole seems slightly lower with the higher power, which is counterintuitive. The expected shift is very small (~10%), since the decay rate is still totally dominated by the mirror transmissions even for the supposed high-loss state (Sam and Sheon estimated the roundtrip loss at high power to be ~1400 ppm, while the combined coupling mirrors' T is 1.6%). I have not been able to fit the cavity poles consistently to within this kind of error.

ELOG V3.1.3-