|
Size: 865
Comment:
|
← Revision 15 as of 2020-03-12 03:47:19 ⇥
Size: 1649
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 19: | Line 19: |
| * 320Hz(floor), 332Hz, 350-370Hz, 394Hz * ~520Hz |
* 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) |
| Line 23: | 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 * Results : [[http://klog.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/osl/?r=13464|klog13464]] * 75Hz * 330-400Hz * 710-720Hz * We don't have a hint for them [[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
- 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
