Displaying report 1-1 of 1.
Reports until 16:39, Friday 04 September 2015
H1 CAL
kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:39, Friday 04 September 2015 - last comment - 21:54, Tuesday 08 September 2015(21221)
cavity pole from Aug28 and Aug 29

While Jeff and Darkhan have been trying to get the actuactor coefficients right for calibration, I worked on an orthogonal task which is to check out the latest optical gain of DARM.

Summary points are:

 


The plots below show the measured optical gain measured by Pcal Y with the loop suppression taken out by measuring the DARM supression within the same lock stretch. 

I used the data from Aug 28 and 29th (alog 21190 and alog 21023 respectively). The parameters were estimated by the fitting function of LISO. I have limited the frequency range of the fitting to be avove 30 Hz because the measurement does not seem to obey physics. I will metion this in the next paragraph. The cavity pole was at around 330 Hz which claims a bit lower frequency than what Evan indendently estimated from the nominal Pcal lines (alog 21210). Not sure why at this point.

One thing we have to pay attentin is a peculiar behavior of the magnitude at low frequencies -- they tend to respond lesser by 20-30 % at most while the phase does not show any evidence of extra poles or zeros. I think that this behavior has been consistently seen since ER7. For example, several DARM open loops from ER7 show very similar behavior (see open loop plots from alog 18769). Also, a recent DARM open loop measurement (see the plot from alog 20819). Keita suggested makeing another DARM open loop measurement with a smaller amplitude, for example by a factor of two at a cost of longer integation time in order to detemine whethre if this is associated with some kind of undesired nonlinearity, saturation or some sort.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
sudarshan.karki@LIGO.ORG - 21:54, Tuesday 08 September 2015 (21320)

I did a similar fit that Shivaraj did at LLO (alog  # 20146), to determine the time delay between PCAL RX and and the DARM_ERR. Both signal chain have one each of IOP  (65 KHz), USER model (16 Khz) and AA filter between them.  The expected time delay between the PCAL and DARM_ERR as shown in the diagram below should be about 13.2 us in total. I used the Optical gain as 1.16e+6 from the alog above and fitted for cavity pole and time delay. I got cavity pole estimate of 324 Hz, close to what Kimamu got from his fitting and time delay of 21 us. This is 7.8 us more than what we expected from the model.

Images attached to this comment
Displaying report 1-1 of 1.