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  Wed Oct 30 01:56:38 2013, tara, DailyProgress, optic, table work oldPBS.jpgnewPBS.jpg
    Reply  Thu Oct 31 00:02:17 2013, tara, DailyProgress, Electronics Equipment, TTFSS offset.pngD040105C.png
       Reply  Thu Oct 31 18:10:07 2013, Evan, DailyProgress, Electronics Equipment, TTFSS 
       Reply  Sun Nov 3 19:37:32 2013, rana, DailyProgress, Electronics Equipment, TTFSS 
          Reply  Tue Nov 5 01:11:15 2013, tara, DailyProgress, Electronics Equipment, TTFSS 
             Reply  Wed Nov 6 01:14:58 2013, tara, DailyProgress, Electronics Equipment, TTFSS beat_2013_11_05.pngbeat_2013_11_05.fig
                Reply  Thu Nov 7 05:08:13 2013, tara, DailyProgress, NoiseBudget, photothermal noise in SiO2/Ta2O5 beat_2013_11_07.pngbeat_2013_11_07.fig
                   Reply  Wed Nov 20 18:19:01 2013, tara, DailyProgress, NoiseBudget, photothermal noise in SiO2/Ta2O5 beat_compare.pngbeat_compare.fig
Message ID: 1384     Entry time: Thu Nov 7 05:08:13 2013     In reply to: 1383     Reply to this: 1388
Author: tara 
Type: DailyProgress 
Category: NoiseBudget 
Subject: photothermal noise in SiO2/Ta2O5 

I add the photo thermal noise effect in the noise budget. With ISS, photothermal noise should be sufficiently small.


What I did

  • Measure beat
  • Measure RIN after ACAV and RCAV
  • Measure TF between TRANSPD and beat, compare the result with Farsi's calculation to determine the absorption (8ppm, with Finesse = 1e4) [add more details]
  • Apply the measured RIN to Farsi calculation to get the conversion from RIN to frequency noise ( I did not use the measured TF because I have not measured the whole range yet, and the calculation matches the measurement quite well).


Comment about the beat

  • At DC -30 Hz, the noise seems to be a combination of photothermal noise, and seismic induced scattered light. Air spring might not help as much as I thought.
  • Above 2kHz, it's not clear if it is gain limited on ACAV loop or not, but this is likely. We can check by measure the PSD of the error signal and convert it to frequency noise.
  • Frequency stabilization of ACAV is significantly inferior than that of RCAV. I don't know if it is the result from PMC or not. More investigation is needed.

Note about RIN measurement

  • RIN (measured behind the cavities) depends considerably on the TTFSS gain, luckily, at optimum gain level, RIN is pushed down enough.
  • RIN from ACAV is almost a factor of 10 worse than that of RCAV @ the optimum gain setting
  • There might be coupling from BB EOM to RIN (due to the mismatches E field between the EOM and the beam). This may explains why RIN is getting worse if common gain is increased a bit before the loop oscillate. Will check that.


Note about loss angles: For  SiO2 and Ta2O5 loss angles = 1e-4 and 7.5e-4 (a factor of 3 above the regular number), the noise budget matches the measurement well. I'll see if it is the same for the data from 8" cavities or not.

Attachment 2: beat_2013_11_07.fig  85 kB
ELOG V3.1.3-