gabriele.vajente@LIGO.ORG - posted 20:40, Monday 18 March 2024 - last comment - 22:14, Monday 18 March 2024(76507)
Testing different PSAMS values
Jennie, Naoki, Evan, Gabriele
WE stepped the two PSAMS differentially, to find a better position. There is some evidence that a value of 150 / 90 is better than the original 120 / 120. Noise i a 200-250 Hz region is about 4% lower. More details will follow.
We tried a small common step after the differential tuning, but saw little effect
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
| ZM4 | ZM5 | θSQZ | BLRMS, 200–250 Hz (m) | BLRMS, 430–490 Hz (m) |
| 120 | 120 | 205.2° | 1.124×10−19 | 1.099×10−19 |
| 140 | 100 | 195.7° | 1.096×10−19 | 1.045×10−19 |
| 150 | 90 | 200.5° | 1.105×10−19 | 1.051×10−19 |
| 160 | 80 | 200.5° | 1.080×10−19 | 1.044×10−19 |
| 180 | 60 | 200.5° | 1.122×10−19 | 1.078×10−19 |
| 200 | 40 | 200.5° | 1.141×10−19 | 1.100×10−19 |
| 170 | 110 | 200.5° | 1.104×10−19 | 1.050×10−19 |
Naoki was optimizing the squeeze angle by hand. The BLRMS are possibly confounded by some 0.03–0.1 Hz motion from an earthquake, but in any case there doesn't seem to be a major win here.