Last weekend I used the offset-lock methof to measure the cavity length noise of the OMC. I tried this with a single-bounce beam last fall, but the intensity noise from the IMC was too large and it contaminated the signal. Here, with the carrier light from the full IFO, the intensity noise is low enough that a good measure of the displacement noise can be made, at least below 100Hz. Here I describe how to offset-lock the OMC and how the cavity length noise is measured; also I make a projection of the OMC cavity noise contribution to DARM. Noise due to OMC length fluctuations should be >10x below the DARM noise floor, except around the ISI resonances at ~1kHz.
This result is complementary to the cavity length noise measurement that Koji & I made by PDH locking the OMC with a single-bounce beam. In comparison, this half-fringe (or "offset-locking") method is limited by intensity noise, but it's less invasive and can be performed entirely from the control room. It might be useful for, e.g., estimating the OMC cavity noise during PEM injections or remeasuring the displacement noise after we install dampeners on the HAM6 ISI (still speculative).
[Yet another method is estimating the displacement noise from the dither-locking error signal; Koji has done this in April and it agrees with the PDH result below 10Hz, but above 10Hz the dither error signal is limited by sensing noise.]
Here are the steps to lock the OMC on the half-fringe, while the full IFO is locked (and the DARM offset engaged). This is essentially the same technique as I used last fall (and is halfway coded in the OMC guardian), which was itself a copy of what Zach did at LLO.
The next steps adjust the OMC-LSC error signal path to set the offset locking at the half fringe point:
Figure 1 illustrates how the offset locking technique uses the RIN on transmission to measure the cavity length noise (delta-x). There's a theorist on my thesis committee, this is for them.
Figure 2 is the transfer function of the length servo, while locked on the half-fringe. This was used to correct for the loop suppression.
Figure 3: the top panel is a plot of the measured RIN during the half-fringe lock (red), and the same data corrected for the loop suppression (blue). The RIN has a noise floor of ~1e-7 / rt[Hz] above 100Hz. This noise is coherent between the DCPDs and is well above the shot noise + dark noise level. (To demonstrate this I plot the NULL stream, along with the DCPD dark noise; both of these were convereted to RIN-equivalent noise by dividing by the DCPD_SUM during the offset lock, 10.2mA. The shot-noise RIN for 10.2mA is in good agreement with the NULL channel.)
I think the noise floor is due to intensity noise coming from the IFO, and above 100Hz we are not measuring RIN due to cavity length fluctuations (except around 1kHz, more on this later). This 1e-7/rt[Hz] noise floor matches the noise floor of the ISS 2nd loop PDs (not plotted), but the coherence is not =1 everywhere. Why isn't it filtered by the IFO?
Figure 4 is the cavity length noise derived from the RIN measurement, red is the in-loop data, blue is the 'free-running' length noise (corrected for loop suppression). The displacement noise is calculated from the RIN using the RIN/dx relationship, derived from the cavity transmission formula. For the OMC, locked halfway up the fringe, the conversion is 2.72e-9 meters/RIN - to get this number you need to know the transmissivity of the OMC input and output mirrors, it is 8000ppm.
Figure 5 is a comparison between our measurements of the OMC displacement noise: Zach's measurement from L1 (red); Koji's result from the PDH lock of the OMC (black); and this measurement (blue). This plot is an update of LHO:16174. In general the measurements are in agreement. The PDH result has a lower noise floor above 100Hz; probably the other measurements are limited by intensity noise. The half-fringe result is lower than the others around 10Hz; Koji measured the noise from the PZT drivers in January, this may be the limiting noise source for the current measurement. (Zach says that the L1 measurement is possibly limited by laser frequency noise in the 3-40Hz band.) The peaky excess in the half-fringe result around 1Hz and 3Hz are coherent with intensity noise and are not real cavity motion, see Fig. 3.
Figure 6 is a zoom of the region around 1kHz.
Here I estimate the contribution of OMC cavity length noise to the DARM noise. Valera, Ryan, and Sam discussed this in G1100903, and I think my methods are essentially the same as what they describe.
First, the noise in the light transmitted through the OMC due to the (suppressed) cavity length noise can be calculated two ways:
For the quadratic case, we calculate the noise in the power measured by the DCPDs due to the cavity length noise as:
dP[f] = (4*F/lambda)^2 * ASD[x(t)**2]
...where F is the cavity finesse (=391), lambda is 1064nm, and the final term is the ASD of the square of the cavity length noise, x(t). This is a quadratic approximation to the peak of the Fabry-Perot transmission curve, for the OMC it is accurate for motion less than ~3e-11 meters, which is true for our data across all frequencies. [Important: you have to take the ASD of the square of the time-series, not the square of the ASD -- the Fourier transform is a linear operator but squaring is not. Thanks Sheila!]
Alternatively, the bilinear coupling is estimated as:
dP[f] = (4*F/lambda)^2 * 2 * x_rms * ASD[x(t)]
I've used x_rms = 3e-13 meters, although this could be an overestimate (see comment below).
Next, to convert dP[f] into an estimate for the DARM noise budget, I turn the crank on the DCPD_SUM --> OMC-READOUT_ERR calculation that is described here:
OMC-READOUT_ERR = DCPD_SUM * (Pref / P0) * xf**2 / (2*x0) * G
...where Pref = 1.56 (power normalization), P0 = 24.1 (input power, Watts), xf = 14 (fringe offset, picometers), x0 = 15.8 (DARM offset, picometers), and G = 8.56e-7 (overall gain factor). These are the values during the lock on Jun 7 at 00:00 UTC that Evan used for his latest noise budget. This calculation converts DCPD_SUM in mA into counts at the DARM_IN1 error point.
Finally, to convert counts of DARM_IN1 into meters of CAL-DELTAL displacement noise, I use a factor of 5e-7, a zero at 389Hz and a pole at 7kHz. The factor of 5e-7 was estimated by matching DARM_IN1 to CAL-DELTAL_EXTERNAL_DQ in DTT. This is about 3x larger than what I expected, based on the calibration of the DARM offset in counts to picometers: 1e-5 counts / 14 picometers. Not sure why there is this discrepancy.
In Figure 7 I plot the CAL-DELTAL spectrum from June 7 with estimates of the contribution from the OMC, using the quadratic and bilinear coupling results. As mentioned before, the OMC length noise projection above 10Hz is probably limited by intensity noise and is bogus, except for the peaks around 1kHz, which are about a factor of two below the noise floor. If this result is correct, it's an ongoing mystery as to why we don't see this 1kHz noise in the DARM spectrum. Robert has investigated the acoustic coupling in this band and also projects that some noise at ~900Hz should be peaking above the noise floor. Why don't we see it?
For interested NoiseBudgeters, the attached text files have the data for the red (quadratic) and blue (bilinear) traces in Fig. 7. (You shouldn't think this noise source has gone unattended in the noise budget until now: Evan says he had measured the OMC-->DARM noise coupling some time ago, using excitations into the OMC-LSC loop, and had convinced himself the OMC wasn't a source of broadband noise. No reason to think any different from this study.)
There is some uncertainty in the value of x_rms. For the half-fringe result, the in-loop RMS is ~4e-12 meters, due to the noise around 0.2Hz (Figure 4). This is certainly an overestimation of the RMS motion during DC readout, because I did not engage the low-frequency boost in the OMC-LSC loop, so the low-frequency suppression was not as large. Koji has measured the RMS from the dither error signal in full lock (LHO:18034) to be ~3e-13 meters. For the PDH measurement (LHO:16089), the RMS motion was even lower, ~4e-14 meters. (The loop gain was significantly larger during the PDH measurement and I suspect it is an underestimate compared to the current loop shape for the OMC.) To err on the side of being conservative I use the dither error signal RMS for the bilinear noise estimation. (Zach measured the L1 OMC in-loop RMS as 7e-13 meters [G1301007, slide 18], but again the loop gain for that measurement is larger than what we use now.)