This log is duplicated in LLO alog 25563.
Further to my alog 25932, I have calculated approximate TCS power levels for O2, this time including the effect of the ring heaters. The results are presented in tabular form.
The bottom line:
To correct the surface curvature errors, we use the RH. It is straightforward to show that the required change in RH power is given by:
dP_RH = - (absorb*dParm) * dSD/dP_self / (dSD/dP_RH),
where 'absorb' is the absorption in the surface of the optic, dParm is the change in the power in the arm, dSD/dP_self (H1:TCS-SIM_
The same calculation can be done for the CO2 laser power:
dP_CO2 = - [ (absorb*dParm) * dS/dP_self + dP_RH * dS/dP_RH ] / (dS/dP_CO2),
where dS/dP_self, dS/dP_RH, dS/dP_CO2 are the change in the substrate lens defocus per Watt for self-heating, RH and central heating CO2 laser respectively. Note that the RH power has, nominally, been fixed by correcting the surface curvature in the previous step.
Note the distinction between the responses for the surface deformation, dSD/dP and the substrate lens, dS/dP.
Based on the best estimates for the absorption in the test masses, the changes in actuator settings are:
POWER | |||
O1 Level (100kW in the arms) | dP_actuator per dP_arm (W/100 kW) | O2 Level (200kW in the arms) | |
RH_ITMX | 0 | 0.085 | 0.085 |
CO2_ITMX | 0.224 | -0.183 | 0.041 |
RH_ITMY | 0 | 0.096 | 0.096 |
CO2_ITMY | 0 | -0.205 | -0.205 |
RH_ETMX | 0.98 | 0.044 | 1.024 |
RH_ETMY | 0.98 | 0.063 | 1.043 |
Obviously, we can't apply negative power with central heating on CO2Y. The reason CO2Y was set to 0W for O1 was because it wasn't working during that science run - therefore, this is probably not the best operating power for CO2Y at 100kW of arm power.
POWER | |||
O1 Level (100kW in the arms) | dP actuator per dP arm (W/100 kW) | O2 Level (200kW in the arms) | |
RH_ITMX | 0 | 0.068 | 0.068 |
CO2_ITMX | 0.218 | -0.146 | 0.072 |
RH_ITMY | 0 | 0.048 | 0.048 |
CO2_ITMY | 0.6 | -0.103 | 0.497 |
RH_ETMX | 1.0 | 0.142 | 1.142 |
RH_ETMY | 1.0 | 0.438 |
1.438 |
Notice the relatively large increase required for ETMY - this is due to our measurements indicating an absorption on there of the order of 1.6ppm, or about 5 or 6 times larger than the average of the other optics.