Differences between revisions 10 and 12 (spanning 2 versions)
⇤ ← Revision 10 as of 2020-03-12 03:36:46 →
Size: 1054
Editor: TakaakiYokozawa
Comment:
← Revision 12 as of 2020-03-12 03:43:24 → ⇥
Size: 1504
Editor: TakaakiYokozawa
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 28: Line 28:



== Acoustic injection to POP table amd PR2 ==

 * Date : 11th Mar. 2020
 * [[http://klog.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/osl/?r=13458 | klog13458]]
 * IMC output power 3.0W
 * REFL PDA1DC ~8mW
 * injection time : 1267904400 - 1267904500
 * silent run : 1267904600-1256904700

 [[attachment:13464_20200311015833_202003115.png|{{ [[attachment:13464_20200311015833_202003115.png]]|Noise projection of acoustic injection to POP 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

  • 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 : 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)

Noise projection of acoustic injection to REFL table

Acoustic injection to POP table amd PR2

KAGRA/Subgroups/PEM/MAR2020/Acoustic_result (last edited 2020-03-12 03:47:19 by TakaakiYokozawa)