Report of the shift of December 10th.
Motivations:
Task of the shift was to evaluate the level of the DAC noise of the input marionette, in particular if its contribution to the low-frequency noise budget is somehow limiting or not. In order to derive such information, we worked in Low noise configuration, reallocating the locking actuation from the input marionettes, to the END ones.
Once in this configuration, the idea was to implement an active subtraction filter (gamma) to reduce the coupling among CARM and DARM loops, i.e. the driving amount that from the common CARM actuation, goes into the DARM actuation.
With the aim to reduce enough this noise contribution, we wanted to eventually derive an upper limit of the input actuation noise, having the comparison of two istances in which the input MAR relays were respectively closed and open, i.e. the High power configuration and the low-noise configuration, respectively.
To be noted that all the actions performed in this configuration couldn't be appreciated on Hrec, since there's a possible miscalibration of the END actuators models, which affects the good reconstruction of the sensitivity.
Hence, profiting of good injections on DARM, all the projection have been made towards a reconstructed sensitivity starting from a calibrated DARM in [m], and afterwards in strain.
Recap of the shift:
Once in the configuration reallocated to the END marionette, we performed a noise injection on CARM loop in order to measure the coupling to DARM. Given the hypothesis that the coupling, at least in the region 10-50 Hz can be assumed frequency independent, we implemented a filter which is basically a static gain with value equal to the measured coupling.
The gamma subtraction filter has been obtained trough the relationship:
Gamma = DARM_corr / CARM_SLOW_corr *(1-OL_darm) / DCP / OL_darm.
where DARM_corr / CARM_SLOW_corr is the TF during the CARM measurement, while OL_darm and DCP are obtained from the model used to calibrate the spectra of DARM.
Those terms are necessary in order to get rid of the fact that during the injection the measured coupling is compensated by the DARM corrector, thus the right coupling is obtained by opening its loop.
As shown in fig.1 the initial coupling with DARM was of about 3%, after the implementation of the subtraction filter, the coupling was reduced of about a factor 10 at 20 Hz. This result is confiremed by looking at fig.s 2 and 3 where CARM_slow loop projections towards DARM, before and after the implementation of the subtraction filter, are shown.
At this point, we were in a sufficient clean condition that allowed us to perform the main activity of the shift, which was the derivation of the level of the DAC noise of the IN marionette, to verify that the estimated noise is in accordance to the known models used to produce the LF noise budgets.
In order to obtain a direct measure of the DAC noise level, we proceeded by opening the relais of the input marionette. After this action, a slight improvement of the reconstructed calibrated sensitivity has been observed (see fig.4). This improvement could be 'reproduced' if we made the hypothesis that the sensitivity curve with the high-power configuration is equal to the quadratic sum of the known DAC model and the sensitivity curve with the low-noise configuration. If we made this approximation, we obtain one similar response (fig.5). This reconstruction doesn't give a precise value of the DAC level of the marionette, but at least tells us that the known model can be assumed as an upper limit, confirming that we are not underestimating the DAC contribution to the LF noise budget.
list of useful GPS:
gps1=1449415808;dur1=300;%CLEAN; CARM subtracted; DAC ON
gps2=1449417098;dur2=300;%CLEAN; CARM subtracted; DAC OFF
gps3=1449406448;dur3=200;%CLEAN; CARM coupled
gps4=1449402128;dur4=400;%NOISE; CARM coupled
gps5=1449415008;dur5=400;%NOISE; CARM subtracted
gps6=1449418948;dur6=160;%injection on DARM