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 Feb 19 11:00:16 2014, ericq, Update, LSC, Some Simulation Efforts PRMISensingAsIs.pdfPRMISensingCoinc.pdfMICHvPRCLangle.pdfArmLengthChoice.pdf
    Reply  Wed Feb 19 14:14:46 2014, ericq, Update, LSC, Some Simulation Efforts PRMISensingAsIs.pdfPRMISensingCoinc.pdfMICHvPRCLangle.pdf
       Reply  Wed Feb 19 16:42:08 2014, ericq, Update, LSC, Some Simulation Efforts SBLOCK_PRMISensingAsIs.pdfSBLOCK_MICHvPRCLangle.pdf
Message ID: 9656     Entry time: Wed Feb 19 14:14:46 2014     In reply to: 9654     Reply to this: 9657
Author: ericq 
Type: Update 
Category: LSC 
Subject: Some Simulation Efforts 

 Q EDIT: THIS IS WRONG. I LOCKED PRC ON THE CARRIER

Koji noted oddities in the sensing matrix results I had gotten; namely that the plots showed REFL33 not changing at all, when we know for a fact that this should not be the case. 

Gabriele lent his eyes to my code, and came up with the idea that the modulation depths I was using were maybe not ideal (.1 for both 11 and 55). This affects REFL33 in that it is not simply Carrier * 33Mhz + 11Mhz * -22Mhz but also 22MHz * 55MHz, etc. 

I got more realistic values from Jenne (0.19 for 11MHz and .26 for 55Mhz) and re-ran the code, with more realistic results. The behavior for 165 has remained the same, but the other signals are more well behaved. 

Moral of the story: the modulation depths affect the 3f signals in a complicated way.

PRMISensingAsIs.pdf

PRMISensingCoinc.pdf

MICHvPRCLangle.pdf

 

 

ELOG V3.1.3-