Attachment 1 - Unsqueezed (left) vs. squeezed (right) DARMs in ER16, with respect to O4a. Like Gabriele's plots, the ratios on the bottom show a given trace / O4a reference, so ratio > 1 means more noise now than O4a.
- (left) Last night's no-sqz time 76872 looks quite similar to O4a around 100 Hz, so maybe any excess non-quantum noises around 100 Hz are improving?
- (right) Squeezing does not look super optimal right now - definitely would be interesting to do more optimization.. It both looks highly frequency-dependent, and SQZ possibly even lossier now than earlier in ER16, though this is very difficult to say. Recently we've been optimizing SQZ around 350 Hz for range, so it's hard to evaluate high-freq SQZ, since it is misrotated due to the strong frequency-dependence. But even recent ASQZ efficiency could use another look. Maybe we could check OPO temperature, try re-running alignment scripts, etc. General SQZ efficiency is worth some investigations, alongside optimizing PSAMS or SRCL.
Colors: Rainbow colors are ordered past to present: e.g. Red = O4a, ... Purple = now.
Attachment 2 - SQZ dBs after subtracting non-quantum noise, with various recent PSAMS settings. Upper subplot: Anti-SQZ, Lower subplot: SQZ. Lines are a moving average of the data. Some caveats for the subtraction: here I am using the same H1 unsqueezed quantum noise model for all subtractions; this may not be the most accurate, but I think it should be fairly close.
Reference alogs wth times that I used to grab GDS_STRAIN_CLEAN:
- O4a references - 74935 and Gabriele's times from 76825
- 76434 - PSAMS 120/120, March 17
- 76540 - PSAMS 150/90, March 20
--> corresponding SQZ data set saw ~10-15% higher frequency-dependent losses at 100 Hz vs. kHz unlike earlier Mar16, possibly due to PSAMS settings following 76507 - 76777 - PSAMS 100/100, March 29
76798 - PSAMS 125/125, March 29low-freq glitch in this short SQZ time, difficult to compare. Expect it is similar to 120/120 data?- 76825 - PSAMS 100/100, March 30 - Gabriele showing total DARM at 100 Hz similar to O4a
- 76872 - PSAMS 100/100, April 2 - opportunistic NO SQZ from last night.
Adding FDS times from the DARM comparison in 76955, and only including times with sqz/no-sqz comparable to those recent darm comparisons.
Attachment 1 - Unsqueezed (left) vs. squeezed (right) DARMs in ER16, with respect to O4a. Like Gabriele's plots, the ratios are trace / O4a reference, so ratio > 1 means more noise now than O4a.
Attachment 2 - SQZ dBs after subtracting non-quantum noise. Analysis with non-quantum noise subtraction for this week's PSAMS data in 76925 and 76949 ongoing.
Attachment 3 - Comparison to a very basic gwinc noise model (pulled from H1 NB) for squeezed darm. For example the dashed purple "Unsqueezed QN model" is (almost) what I am using for subtracting non-quantum noises.
Colors are rainbow-ordered time-wise. Red = O4a reference. Purple = 4/4 times from 76955 for FDS DARM comparisons.
Note: here the PSAMS settings are referenced in terms of strain voltages. Just pointing out that LLO has a guardian to servo PSAMS voltage to meet the "_TARGET" strain gauge voltage LLO:63403.
Reference alogs wth times used to grab GDS_STRAIN_CLEAN:
- O4a references - sqz data set 74935, and Gabriele's times from e.g. 76825
- 76434 - 3/17, PSAMS 120/120
- 76540 - 3/20-3/25, PSAMS 150/90
--> corresponding SQZ data set saw ~10-15% higher frequency-dependent losses at 100 Hz vs. kHz unlike earlier Mar16, possibly due to PSAMS settings following 76507 - 76757, 76777 - 3/27-29, PSAMS 100/100, since SQZ ZM alignment guardian
- 76872 - 4/2, PSAMS 100/100 - opportunistic NO SQZ ~1hour
- 76955 - 4/4, DARM comparison
