40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log  Not logged in ELOG logo
Entry  Wed Dec 11 15:01:57 2019, Jon, Summary, PSL, PMC cavity ringdown measurement IMG_0101.jpg
    Reply  Thu Dec 12 19:20:43 2019, Yehonathan, Update, PSL, PMC cavity ringdown measurement IMG_0105.jpegTEK00001.PNG20191212_151642.jpg
       Reply  Fri Dec 13 12:28:43 2019, Yehonathan, Update, PSL, PMC cavity ringdown measurement Ringdown_InitialProcess.pdf
          Reply  Tue Dec 17 20:45:30 2019, rana, Update, PSL, PMC cavity ringdown measurement 
          Reply  Fri Dec 27 15:01:02 2019, Yehonathan, Update, PSL, PMC cavity ringdown measurement PDAOMResponse.pdfPMCTransmission.pdfRingdownsAndRefs.pdfTwoExponentialFitAOM0.3V.pdf
             Reply  Tue Dec 31 03:03:02 2019, gautam, Update, PSL, PMC cavity ringdown measurement 
       Reply  Mon Dec 16 18:19:42 2019, shruti, Update, PSL, PMC cavity ringdown measurement : beat-note disruption IMG_0040.jpg
Message ID: 15097     Entry time: Fri Dec 13 12:28:43 2019     In reply to: 15096     Reply to this: 15102   15105
Author: Yehonathan 
Type: Update 
Category: PSL 
Subject: PMC cavity ringdown measurement 

I grab the data we recorded yesterday from the scope and plot it in normalized units (remove noise level and divide by maximum). See attachment.

It can be seen that the measured ringdown time is ~ 17us while the shut-off time is ~12us.

I plan to model the PD+AOM as a lowpass filter with an RC time constant of 12us and undo its filtering action on the PMC trans ringdown measurement to get the actual ringdown time.

Is this acceptable?

 

Attachment 1: Ringdown_InitialProcess.pdf  102 kB  Uploaded Sat Dec 14 13:19:54 2019  | Hide | Hide all
Ringdown_InitialProcess.pdf
ELOG V3.1.3-