40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  ATF eLog  Not logged in ELOG logo
Entry  Thu Oct 22 11:19:44 2020, anchal, Summary, ECDL, Prospects of using ECDL for Auxiliary laser AUX_Loop_Study_With_ECDL.pdf
    Reply  Fri Oct 23 12:19:19 2020, anchal, Summary, ECDL, Effects of chosen AUX finesse and source on Calibration requirements AUX_Finesse_and_Source_Study.pdf
       Reply  Wed Oct 28 14:05:19 2020, rana, Summary, ECDL, Effects of chosen AUX finesse and source on Calibration requirements 
Message ID: 2510     Entry time: Fri Oct 23 12:19:19 2020     In reply to: 2509     Reply to this: 2511
Author: anchal 
Type: Summary 
Category: ECDL 
Subject: Effects of chosen AUX finesse and source on Calibration requirements 

Following up on the last post, here I presented a near back of the envelope calculation of how different choices of AUX cavity finesse and laser source for mariner would affect the prospects of calibration scheme.

Laser sources considered:

As mentioned in the last elog post, here I considered using an NPRO seeded auxiliary laser source (converted to 1418nm by whatever method), ECDL based on ANU design with a modified PDH loop and same ECDl with a digital compensation of PZT resonances. I have taken the residual frequnecy noise of these lasers as the dominant noise source in the calibration scheme. Craig and Gautam in their proposal for SoCal wanted the AUX laser to be locked to the arm cavity in a PDH shot noise limited way. That would be necessary for 4km interferometers and would be easier to achieve there with higher laser powers and higher cavity finesse.

Finesse of 40m Arm Cavity for 1418nm:

Here I considered three cases. First assumes about 3% transmittance of 1418nm in ITM and ETM HR coatings for mariner. This gives a finesse of about 100 and a cavity pole of 18.9 kHz. I believe this is the existing case at 40m. Next we consider transmittance of 0.5% and 0.05% (500 ppm) of 1418nm in ITM and ETM HR coatings for mairner. These cases give finesse of 625 and 6.28k respectively with cavity poles at 3 kHz and 299 Hz respectively.

Page 1: Consideres the case of finesse of 100. The green dashed line shows the amount of drive strength (in m) required at different frequencies if we use ECDL with PZT resonance compensation, to get an SNR of 1000 in 100s of integration time.

Page 2: Same as above but for Finesse of 625.

Page 3: Same as bove but for Finesse of 6280.

Page 4: Comparison of different finesse cases for the ECDL with PZT compensation option. Dashed curves represent requried drive strength (in m) for different cases.

Page 5: Same as above but for NPRO seeded auxiliary laser.

Note: For the NPRO seeded auxiliary laser, we have assumed that the noise of conversion to 1418 nm is similar to noise due to SHG process which is not dominant. There would be an effect of multiplying with a factor ranging form 1-1.5 due to frequency conversion but I have ignored it here for simiplicity. Also, NPRO case is limited in bandwidth due to PZT resonances. We might be able to get away with them using digital compensation like the case study for ECDL. But I haven't attempted that here as we do not know our NPRO PZT's resonance features yet.

Attachment 1: AUX_Finesse_and_Source_Study.pdf  77 kB  Uploaded Fri Oct 23 13:21:14 2020  | Hide | Hide all
AUX_Finesse_and_Source_Study.pdf AUX_Finesse_and_Source_Study.pdf AUX_Finesse_and_Source_Study.pdf AUX_Finesse_and_Source_Study.pdf AUX_Finesse_and_Source_Study.pdf
ELOG V3.1.3-