40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  PSL  Not logged in ELOG logo
Entry  Thu Jun 20 17:23:40 2013, Chloe, DailyProgress, ECDL, Noise Calculations saito.pdfpsd_noise.png
    Reply  Fri Jun 21 16:47:30 2013, Chloe, DailyProgress, ECDL, Noise Calculations Noise.pdf
       Reply  Mon Jun 24 11:14:04 2013, Chloe, DailyProgress, ECDL, Noise Calculations Noise.pdf
          Reply  Mon Jun 24 17:48:30 2013, Chloe, DailyProgress, ECDL, Noise Calculations Noise.pdf
             Reply  Tue Jun 25 14:14:17 2013, rana, DailyProgress, ECDL, Noise Calculations 
                Reply  Tue Jun 25 17:51:34 2013, Chloe, DailyProgress, ECDL, Noise Calculations Noise2.pdf
                   Reply  Wed Jun 26 17:13:21 2013, Chloe, DailyProgress, ECDL, Noise Calculations Noise2.pdf
                      Reply  Fri Jun 28 14:52:11 2013, tara, Notes, ECDL, laser noise requirement for locking to a refcav 
                      Reply  Sun Jun 30 22:58:45 2013, Chloe, DailyProgress, ECDL, Noise Calculations compare_experiments.pngcompare_diodes.pngcompare_gratings.pngcompare_length.png100_0068.JPG
Message ID: 1211     Entry time: Tue Jun 25 17:51:34 2013     In reply to: 1210     Reply to this: 1214
Author: Chloe 
Type: DailyProgress 
Category: ECDL 
Subject: Noise Calculations 

I spent this morning looking at the mounts and other mechanical parts necessary for the ECDL. This afternoon, I met with Tara to discuss how I should run some noise calculations for including a servo to reduce frequency noise. I will deal with the mechanical logistics later while we are waiting for the diode, etc. from Thorlabs. 


Quote:

Its true that this approximation is valid for low frequencies, but we are interested in the total RMS frequency noise for cavity locking, not just the spectral density.

So you do have to take into account the frequency dependence. IF there is a lot of noise at 100's of MHz, these lasers will be totally useless to us.

I corrected this, since the paper did have an equation about how the power spectral density is reduced by frequency. This is in the updated noise pdf attached. We no longer have a low enough noise level to do the crackle experiment below 100 Hz or above 10 MHz using our original estimates. This makes running calculations including a servo important. 


I also played around in Mathematica trying to see what value of X would be sufficient to reduce the noise level. Uploading the notebook isn't working right now. It shows that in order to reduce the noise level to meet the requirements for the Crackle experiment, we need a parameter X of about 3000. This is quite large, and would require a cavity of length 30 m. Alternatively, we could reduce the noise by:

  • A different laser diode that had low enough noise to begin with, or a very small reflectivity
  • A diffraction grating that had a very high reflectivity
  • Finding a very good TEC, which would reduce thermal noise (most websites don't seem to offer this data...)
  • Note that at this time, it seems unfeasible to go with any current driver besides the one designed by Libbrecht and Hall, since the current noise limits how low the diode's noise can be at high frequencies

Tonight or tomorrow, I will try to shop around to see if other laser diodes have slightly nicer specs. I will also look to see if other papers encountered the same problem. 

 

Attachment 1: Noise2.pdf  156 kB  | Hide | Hide all
Noise2.pdf Noise2.pdf Noise2.pdf Noise2.pdf Noise2.pdf
ELOG V3.1.3-