C. Cahillane, D. Tuyenbayev I have updated the strain uncertainty calculator to use Darkhan's latest ER8 model along with ER8 data.
The ER8 model: /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Scripts/DARMOLGTFs/H1DARMOLGTFmodel_ER8.m
The ER8 params: /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Scripts/DARMOLGTFs/H1DARMparams_1124597103.m
The ER8 uncertainty calc: /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/S7/Common/MatlabTools/strainUncertaintyER8.m
Again, there are slight discrepancies between Plot 1 and Plot 7. To reiterate, Plot 1 uses the full O1 calibration method and real data, while Plot 7 uses the Inverse Response TF with no data:
Plot 1:
dh = DARM_ERR / C_true + A_true * DARM_CTRL
------------------------------------
DARM_ERR / C_0 + A_0 * DARM_CTRL
Plot 7:
dh = (1 + G_true) / C_true
----------------------
(1 + G_0) / C_0
This time, I believe the discrepancies are a result of the as-of-yet incomplete ER8 model. I will rerun this test when Kiwamu, Jeff, and Darkhan have all finished updating the ER8 model.
Note that the ugly spikes in uncertainty have disappeared from Plots 1-6 (as opposed to aLOG 21065).
This is because now I do not have to interpolate my DARM_ERR and DARM_CTRL FFT frequency vector thanks to Darkhan's clever ER8 model functions par.{A,C,D,G}.getFreqResp_total(freq) where freq is a frequency vector I define. This is possible because each portion of the ER8 model is an LTI object. Thanks Darkhan.
I have updated these plots for the newly updated ER8 Calibration Model at GPS time 1125747803 (Sep 08 2015 11:43:06 UTC). Now I am getting better agreement between the data-based strain error plot (Plot 1) and the response function error plot (Plot 7). I am now getting a conspicuous spike in error at 37.3 Hz in Plots 1-6, which is exactly where the X_CTRL calibration line is. I cannot be sure why this line is accounting for massive errors in the strain calculation with only 10% changes in the kappa_tst, etc...