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  Thu Apr 3 18:55:10 2014, ericq, Summary, LSC, Some CARM related modeling asIsPRCRes.pdfidealPRCRes.pdf3fPrclAnglesCarm.pdf
    Reply  Fri Apr 4 18:51:29 2014, ericq, Summary, LSC, MORE CARM related modeling 9x
Message ID: 9784     Entry time: Thu Apr 3 18:55:10 2014     Reply to this: 9785
Author: ericq 
Type: Summary 
Category: LSC 
Subject: Some CARM related modeling 

 The other day, Jenne and I were comparing my MIST simulation to her Optickle simulation for the CARM transfer functions I posted some days ago. She told me that the arms are not exactly where they should be for the whole "PRC length tuning to account for sideband reflection phase off resonant cavity" deal. 

Specifically, as in the wiki (but with newer modulation frequencies), I calculated the ideal arm length to be 37.795 m some time ago, when doing PRC length simulations, and Jenne has told me that the X arm is more like 37.6m, and Y is 37.9. So, I updated my simulations, and found the following:

This does weird things to the f2 sideband buildup on resonance in the PRFPMI configuration:

asIsPRCRes.pdf idealPRCRes.pdf

(POP is way huger than than the TR's, because the POP pd's are artificially "inside" the cavity, whereas TRX/Y is actually transmitted through an ETM)

This is not necessarily directly something to worry about, but I think the following may be. It looks like this arm length mismatch actually causes the PRCL demodulation phase in REFL 165 to change dramatically with the CARM offset. (REFL33 seems fine, though. 5 degrees causes less than a 1% effective gain change.) 


My simulations don't include any signal recycling yet, so I don't have anything to show if there is a similar effect for SRCL, but it wouldn't surprise me... 


ELOG V3.1.3-