Differences between revisions 5 and 7 (spanning 2 versions)
⇤ ← Revision 5 as of 2016-09-20 00:22:22 →
Size: 731
Editor: KentaroSomiya
Comment:
← Revision 7 as of 2016-09-20 00:28:01 → ⇥
Size: 1284
Editor: KentaroSomiya
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 12: Line 12:
  [[attachment:Somiya160610part2v2.pptx|presentation file]]   [[attachment:Somiya150610part2v2.pptx]]
Line 28: Line 28:
  * It is reasonable that the output field is more sensitive to the OMC tilt with the BS map added.
  * We will not need an FFT calculation as the FINESSE simulation seems to converge.
  * Additional optics (ITM or OFI) may increase the requirement but will be a factor so we can proceed to design suspensions with the current requirement.
Line 31: Line 35:

  * A blade spring for BRT suspension will be useful for the OMC suspension which only needs a single-stage vertical isolation at around 1Hz.
  * Requirements to OMMTs and OFI should be also given to Akutsu-kun in m/rtHz.

Meetings

* 2016/4/19

* 2016/6/10

* 2016/6/24

* 2016/8/26

* 2016/9/5

  • Telecon with Yamamoto-san
  • It is reasonable that the output field is more sensitive to the OMC tilt with the BS map added.
  • We will not need an FFT calculation as the FINESSE simulation seems to converge.
  • Additional optics (ITM or OFI) may increase the requirement but will be a factor so we can proceed to design suspensions with the current requirement.

* 2016/9/14

  • Telecon with IOO members
  • A blade spring for BRT suspension will be useful for the OMC suspension which only needs a single-stage vertical isolation at around 1Hz.
  • Requirements to OMMTs and OFI should be also given to Akutsu-kun in m/rtHz.

KAGRA/Subgroups/IOO/OMC/meeting2016 (last edited 2017-04-06 17:51:58 by KentaroSomiya)