|
Size: 880
Comment:
|
Size: 2098
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 4: | Line 4: |
| Somiya, Wang, Kokeyama, Koyama, Hirose | |
| Line 5: | Line 6: |
| == Agenda == | == Minute == |
| Line 8: | Line 9: |
| * IFO modeling | * Birefringence modeling (Haoyou) * Model where a BS splitting S and P (Somiya model) * Haoyu rose an interesting question if this BS-birefringence model can really simulate the real S and P fields or not. Sinsce "i" is added when the EM fields transmit the BS, using a BS to split S and P pols, there are sign flips inside the S-P coupled cavity model. See, his [[https://gwdoc.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cgi-bin/private/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=11792|note]], especially page 4. The P-pol cavity (P-PRM) field going back to the S-pol cavity (S-PRM) gets -1 (two transmissions at BS, therefore i*i), which is the flipped sign compared with the S field inside the S-PRM cavity. Isn't that not true for our ITM birefringence mirror? * How the relative phase between S and P are when they transmit and reflect in reality? Are there only phase delay on the mirror surface? Can the energy be conserved in that case? Or do one of S or P actually have to have phase flip compared with the other? * We will have to understand the reality to evaluate the simulation. * IFO modeling (Keiko) |
| Line 19: | Line 26: |
| * Birefringence modeling (Haoyou) * OMC modeling (June Gyu) * Simulation Interface * Yuzu-san, Hirose-san, Koyama-san are visiting Kamioka |
* Simulation Interface (Koyama, Hirose, Yuzu) * Yuzu-san, Hirose-san, Koyama-san are visiting Kamioka this week until the middle of next week. * They made a first GUI box to put a optical parameter to pass to a finesse model. |
Simulation meeting 2020 Aug 19, 15:00-
Participants
Somiya, Wang, Kokeyama, Koyama, Hirose
Minute
Updates from Projects
- Birefringence modeling (Haoyou)
- Model where a BS splitting S and P (Somiya model)
Haoyu rose an interesting question if this BS-birefringence model can really simulate the real S and P fields or not. Sinsce "i" is added when the EM fields transmit the BS, using a BS to split S and P pols, there are sign flips inside the S-P coupled cavity model. See, his note, especially page 4. The P-pol cavity (P-PRM) field going back to the S-pol cavity (S-PRM) gets -1 (two transmissions at BS, therefore i*i), which is the flipped sign compared with the S field inside the S-PRM cavity. Isn't that not true for our ITM birefringence mirror?
- How the relative phase between S and P are when they transmit and reflect in reality? Are there only phase delay on the mirror surface? Can the energy be conserved in that case? Or do one of S or P actually have to have phase flip compared with the other?
- We will have to understand the reality to evaluate the simulation.
- Model where a BS splitting S and P (Somiya model)
- IFO modeling (Keiko)
- Done (one disagreement in the matrices)
- Comparison v.s. analytical calculation
- Mostly done (a few disagreement in the matrices)
- DRFPMI model
- kat and jupyter notebook are on git, to be tested
- Include the higher order modes (FPMI, PRFPMI, DRFPMI)
- Haven't started
- Simulation Interface (Koyama, Hirose, Yuzu)
- Yuzu-san, Hirose-san, Koyama-san are visiting Kamioka this week until the middle of next week.
- They made a first GUI box to put a optical parameter to pass to a finesse model.