|
Size: 562
Comment:
|
Size: 1210
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 8: | Line 8: |
| {{attachment:ResonantCurves.png|width=800}} | {{attachment:ResonantCurves.png||width=800}} |
| Line 12: | Line 12: |
| Line 13: | Line 14: |
| the arm length a lot. | the arm length a lot. So what we aim for are, (1) both sidebands are sufficiently far from the resonances, and (2) both sidebands get the same phase change at the reflection. By tweaking the MC length (thus the sideband frequencies) a bit (tens of mm), we can find a suitable sideband frequencies which satisfies the above criteria. The plot below shows the difference between the reflection phases of the two sidebands as a function of the mode cleaner length's deviation (dLmc) from the canonical length. {{attachment:PhaseDiff.png||width=800}} There are several zero crossing in the +/-100mm tuning range, the smallest one being around -20mm. |
Arm Cavity Design
RF Sideband resonance in the arm cavities
We have to avoid RF sidebands to be resonant in the arm cavities. For example, canonical parameters (L=3000.0, f1=11.25MHz) give the following resonant curves.
Only the upper sidebands are plotted here. It is clear that the two sidebands get different phase shifts when reflected by the arm cavities.
It is desirable to have them both at exactly an anti-resonance. However, it is not possible unless we change the arm length a lot.
So what we aim for are, (1) both sidebands are sufficiently far from the resonances, and (2) both sidebands get the same phase change at the reflection.
By tweaking the MC length (thus the sideband frequencies) a bit (tens of mm), we can find a suitable sideband frequencies which satisfies the above criteria.
The plot below shows the difference between the reflection phases of the two sidebands as a function of the mode cleaner length's deviation (dLmc) from the canonical length.
There are several zero crossing in the +/-100mm tuning range, the smallest one being around -20mm.