Differences between revisions 8 and 9
Revision 8 as of 2020-03-09 18:30:24
Size: 5768
Comment:
Revision 9 as of 2020-04-17 23:38:36
Size: 5797
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 29: Line 29:
  * ITMX and ITMY single bounce has 12% and 15% loss, respectively, including ITM transmission and losses to p-pol. Losses to p-pol measured at POP was 9.4% for ITMX and 4.6% for ITMY. Considering BS reflectivity is different for s-pol and p-pol., this corresponds to 6.1% for ITMX single bounce and 11% for ITMY single bounce. https://klog.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/osl/?r=9314 https://gwdoc.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cgi-bin/private/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=10369
  * Carrier power recycling gain for PRMI was about 3, which corresponds to PRC intra-cavity loss of 25% or so. Considering ITMX and ITMY single bounce losses, this means that Michelson contrast defect is 10% or so. http://klog.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/osl/?r=9300
  * ITMX and ITMY single bounce has 12% and 15% loss, respectively, including ITM transmission and losses to p-pol. Losses to p-pol measured at POP was 9.4% for ITMX and 4.6% for ITMY. Considering BS reflectivity is different for s-pol and p-pol., this corresponds to 6.1% for ITMX single bounce and 11% for ITMY single bounce. https://klog.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/osl/?r=9314 https://gwdoc.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cgi-bin/private/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=10369 https://gwdoc.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cgi-bin/private/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=10388
  * Carrier power recycling gain for PRMI was about 3, which corresponds to PRC intra-cavity loss of 25% or so. Considering the sloshing effect, this is reasonable. http://klog.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/osl/?r=9300

ISC Meeting on 2020/03/09 14:00 - 15:00

Participants: Matteo Leonardi, Tomotada Akutsu, Masayuki Nakano, Koji Arai, Ryutaro Takahashi, Osamu Miyakawa, Shinji Miyoki, Koji Nagano, Hiro Yamamoto, Kiwamu Izumi, Yuta Michimura

Zoom meeting: https://zoom.us/j/6676627462

Next meeting

TBD

back to Meetings page

Minutes

  • DRFPMI trial was done when the alignment is not so good. With current alignment, DRFPMI might be possible [Masayuki]
  • We also need to consider if compound SRM is good or not. If not, we have to think about making a monolithic 0% SRM or 70% SRM (takes 0.5 years?). [Matteo]
    • Compound SRM was used for aLIGO O1 and O2, but KAGRA might have more issue with compound SRM since KAGRA have more HOMs at AS [Koji A.]
  • If ITM re-polishing is necessary to compensate TWE map, it takes 1 year with the most optimistic case to do them. [Matteo]
  • The effect of contrast defect and frequency/intensity noise coupling should be measured more directly. [Koji A.]
  • A/I for Michimura

Agenda

KAGRA/subgroup/ifo/MIF/Minutes20200309 (last edited 2020-04-17 23:38:36 by YutaMichimura)