40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab CAML OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  Mariner elog  Not logged in ELOG logo
Entry  Mon Jul 18 18:34:29 2022, Paco, General, Design specs, HR coating update ETM_R.pdfITM_R.pdfETM_Layers.pdfITM_Layers.pdf
    Reply  Fri Jul 22 13:36:55 2022, Paco, General, Design specs, HR coating update ETM_corner.pdfITM_corner.pdf
       Reply  Tue Aug 16 09:58:23 2022, Paco, General, Design specs, HR coating update 6x
          Reply  Tue Aug 23 17:10:50 2022, Paco, General, Design specs, New corner plots ITM_corner.pdfETM_corner.pdf
Message ID: 68     Entry time: Fri Jul 22 13:36:55 2022     In reply to: 67     Reply to this: 76
Author: Paco 
Type: General 
Category: Design specs 
Subject: HR coating update 

Here are some corner plots to analyze the sensitivity of the designs in the previous elog to a 1% gaussian distributed perturbation using MCMC.

Attachment #1 shows the ETM corner plot 

Attachment #2 shows the ITM corner plot.

I let the indices of both high and low index materials vary, as well as the physical thicknesses and project their covariances to the transmission for PSL and AUX wavelengths.

The result shows that for our designs it is better to undershoot in the optimization stage rather than meet the exact number. Nevertheless, 1% level perturbations in the optical thickness of the stack result in 30% deviations in our target transmission specifications. It would be nice to have a better constraint on how much each parameter is actually varying by, e.g. I don't believe we can't fix the index of refraction to better than 1%., but exactly what its value is I don't know, and what are the layer deposition tolerances? These numbers will make our perturbation analysis more precise.

Attachment 1: ETM_corner.pdf  626 kB  Uploaded Fri Jul 22 14:38:07 2022  | Hide | Hide all
Attachment 2: ITM_corner.pdf  649 kB  Uploaded Fri Jul 22 14:38:19 2022  | Hide | Hide all
ELOG V3.1.3-