We performed the acousitc injection to REFL table with following configuration
DAC count 2000cnt uniform(60-3000Hz)
IMC output power 3.4W
REFL PDA1DC ~7mV
injection time : 1267565800-1267565900
silent run : 1267565900-1267566200
I backed IMC output power and REFL PDA1DC power to nominal value.
I performed the PEM injection analysis.
result :
zoom up :
.ini file :
|
[time] inj_start = 1267565810 inj_end = 1267565890 bkg_start = 1267565910 bkg_end = 1267566020 [channel] DARM = K1:CAL-CS_PROC_C00_STRAIN_DBL_DQ PEM = K1:PEM-SENSOR_BOOTH_IMC_BNC3_OUT_DQ [analysis] fmin = 50 fmax = 1010 fftlength = 4 overlap = 1 ; threshold for injection significance sigma_DARM = 3 sigma_PEM = 3 |
intermediate plots :
I also evaluated the effect of acoustic noise around REFL table into each PEM sensors.
-> these spectrums can be roughly understood by the acoustic field in the clean booth
-> Only 130Hz, 330Hz, 520 Hz are comparable to the background spectrum.
-> MCF-REFL table is well resistant to sound OR the sencitivity of the ACC is not enough.
For the ACCs on ground (See http://klog.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/osl/?r=13293) :
Is it possible to explain more on your graphs?? I'm sorry but it's hard for me to estimate the air of those graphs. It seemed they are not for projections to DARM but for each PEM ch... From these results, what should we learn? (What can be uderstood, and what cannot be understood?)
miss
miss
miss
In PEM injection analysis, sometimes overestimation is happen.
One cause is the frequency conversion due to mechanical resonance of something.
So, the structure of the spectrum for darm and othre channels might be a hints of the noise path.
I investigated the PEM channels and QPDs around REFL table by my eye.
As a results, only IMMT1 trans QPDs (pitch) have similar structure with DARM around 280Hz.
I could not find any similar channels around 360Hz nor 520 Hz.
Plots for
miss
I performed the same analysis for other DoF.
As a results,
[Plots]
CARM
MICH
PRCL
X arm
MCL
