1. Acoustic injection to PSL room
11/25 12:31:00 - 13:05:00 (JST)
EXC : K1:PEM-EXCITATION_MCF0_RACK_13_EXC
REF : K1:PEM-MIC_PSL_TABLE_PSL1_Z_OUT_DQ
Info : PSL 50 - 900 Hz 171 point 5 Hz resolution 100 cnt excitation
2. Shake injection to TMSX table EXC1 (Fig.3.)
11/25 13:07:00 - 13:41:00 (JST)
EXC : K1:PEM-EXCITATION_EX0_RACK_1_EXC
REF : K1:PEM-POTABLE_EXC_RACK_EX0_ADC0_DSUB25_OUT_DQ
info : TMSX EXC1 50 - 900 Jz 171 point 5 Hz resolution 100cnt excitation
3. Shaker injection to TMSX table EXC1 sweep
11/25 13:42:30 - 13:47:30 (JST)
EXC : K1:PEM-EXCITATION_EX0_RACK_1_EXC
REF : K1:PEM-POTABLE_EXC_RACK_EX0_ADC0_DSUB25_OUT_DQ
Info : TMSX EXC1 900 -> 50 Hz sweep 100 cnt with 300 sec using awggui
13:47:30 - Silent run
I analyzed the PEM injection data:
1. Acoustic injection to PSL room
11/25 12:31:00 - 13:05:00 (JST)
EXC : K1:PEM-EXCITATION_MCF0_RACK_13_EXC
REF : K1:PEM-MIC_PSL_TABLE_PSL1_Z_OUT_DQ
Info : PSL 50 - 900 Hz 171 point 5 Hz resolution 100 cnt excitation
The projected noise was dominant around 400Hz widely.
The channel name in the klog35662 was wrong
| wrong | K1:PEM-POTABLE_EXC_RACK_EX0_ADC0_DSUB25_OUT_DQ |
| correct | K1:PEM-PORTABLE_EXC_RACK_EX0_ADC0_DSUB25_OUT_DQ |
I analyzed the PEM injection data:
2. Shake injection to TMSX table EXC1 (Fig.3.)
11/25 13:07:00 - 13:41:00 (JST)
EXC : K1:PEM-EXCITATION_EX0_RACK_1_EXC
REF : K1:PEM-POTABLE_EXC_RACK_EX0_ADC0_DSUB25_OUT_DQ
info : TMSX EXC1 50 - 900 Jz 171 point 5 Hz resolution 100cnt excitation
Note that the REF channel name was wrong.
Since a significant excess was not found for almost all frequency injection, the upper limit based on the Coupling Function model (w/o frequency-conversion) is also plotted.
I also checked the TMSX QPDs:
- K1:TMS-X_IR_QPDA1_PIT_OUT_DQ
- K1:TMS-X_IR_QPDA1_YAW_OUT_DQ
- K1:TMS-X_IR_QPDA2_PIT_OUT_DQ
- K1:TMS-X_IR_QPDA2_YAW_OUT_DQ
