|
Size: 201
Comment:
|
Size: 1054
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| = Summary of results for the acoustic injection = | = Summary of results for the acoustic injection = |
| Line 7: | Line 7: |
* Date : 7th Mar. 2020 * [[http://klog.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/osl/?r=13382 | klog13382]] * After changing the sampling rate of the portable PEMs * IMC output power 3.4W * REFL PDA1DC ~7mW * injection time : 1267565800-1267565900 * silent run : 1267565900-1267566200 * Results : [[http://klog.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/osl/?r=13415|13415]] * There seems to be several peaks * 250Hz, 265Hz, 274Hz, 276Hz, 279Hz, 282Hz, 296Hz * Hint in the ISS table(QPD1 pit)? * 320Hz(floor), 332Hz, * Hint in the ISS table(QPD1 pit)? * 350-370Hz, 394Hz * PR3 oplev yaw? * 510-530Hz * Similar behavior in the IMC refl accelerometer (Hint in the IMC refl) [[attachment:13407_20200309024834_202003096.png|{{attachment:13407_20200309024834_202003096.png|Noise projection of acoustic injection to REFL table|width="600"}}]] |
Summary of results for the acoustic injection
- Yokozawa injected the better interferometer condition
- Washimi-san evaluated the noise projection
Acoustic injection to REFL table
- Date : 7th Mar. 2020
- After changing the sampling rate of the portable PEMs
- IMC output power 3.4W
- REFL PDA1DC ~7mW
- injection time : 1267565800-1267565900
- silent run : 1267565900-1267566200
Results : 13415
- There seems to be several peaks
- 250Hz, 265Hz, 274Hz, 276Hz, 279Hz, 282Hz, 296Hz
- Hint in the ISS table(QPD1 pit)?
- 320Hz(floor), 332Hz,
- Hint in the ISS table(QPD1 pit)?
- 350-370Hz, 394Hz
- PR3 oplev yaw?
- 510-530Hz
- Similar behavior in the IMC refl accelerometer (Hint in the IMC refl)
- 250Hz, 265Hz, 274Hz, 276Hz, 279Hz, 282Hz, 296Hz
- There seems to be several peaks
