Hiro Yamamoto GWADW Girdwood, Alaska LIGO-G1500634 Beam Splitter in aLIGO Hiro Yamamoto LIGO/Caltech BS02 to BS05? larger BS? BS in aLIGO IFO for.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Hiro Yamamoto LLO April 3, 2014 LIGO-G Core Optics related loss hierarchy of aLIGO Hiro Yamamoto LIGO/Caltech Introduction Loss related to geometry.
Advertisements

LIGO Laboratory1 Thermal Compensation Experience in LIGO Phil Willems- Caltech Virgo/LSC Meeting, Cascina, May 2007 LIGO-G Z.
LSC-Virgo Hannover on October 24, 2007 G E1 Scattering Loss Hiro Yamamoto - Caltech LIGO LIGO I mirror loss estimation surface figure,
LIGO NSF review, 11/10/05 1 AdLIGO Optical configuration and control Nov 10, 2005 Alan Weinstein for AdLIGO Interferometer Sensing and Control (ISC) and.
Stefan Hild and A.Freise Advanced Virgo meeting, December 2008 Preliminary Thoughts on the optimal Arm Cavity Finesse of Advanced Virgo.
LIGO NSF review, 11/10/05 1 AdLIGO Optical configuration and control Nov 10, 2005 Alan Weinstein for AdLIGO Interferometer Sensing and Control (ISC) and.
LIGO-G W LIGO Scientific Collaboration Meeting – LLO March Summary of recent measurements of g factor changes induced by thermal loading.
Scattering loss (Hiro CIT on April 11, 2007 G Extra loss ~ 40ppm / mirror microroughness = 4~5 ppm? Visibility, recycling gain, large.
FFT study of the realistic Optics of LIGO I July 12th, 2004 Commissioning meeting Hiro Yamamoto, Biplab Bhawal, Xiao Xu (CIT-SURF)  LIGO I mirror phase.
BS and Mirrors for the LCGT Norikatsu Mio, PSC Univ. of Tokyo Eiichi Hirose, ICRR Univ. of Tokyo December 13, 2011 CSIRO, Lindfield Australia.
Stefan Hild and Andreas Freise Advanced Virgo meeting, August 2008 Advanced Virgo beam size: Asymmetric ROCs and Coating Thermal Noise.
Status of LCGT and CLIO Masatake Ohashi (ICRR, The University of TOKYO) and LCGT, CLIO collaborators TAUP2007 Sendai, Japan 2007/9/12.
Design of Stable Power-Recycling Cavities University of Florida 10/05/2005 Volker Quetschke, Guido Mueller.
Optical Configuration Advanced Virgo Review Andreas Freise for the OSD subsystem.
Degeneracy for power-recycling and signal recycling cavities in Advanced Virgo.
1 The Status of Melody: An Interferometer Simulation Program Amber Bullington Stanford University Optics Working Group March 17, 2004 G D.
1 Experiences and lessons learned from interferometer simulations at GEO GWADW, Andreas Freise for Hartmut Grote, Holger Wittel and the rest.
Thermal Compensation in Stable Recycling Cavity 21/03/2006 LSC Meeting 2006 UF LIGO Group Muzammil A. Arain.
Gravitational Wave Detection Using Precision Interferometry Gregory Harry Massachusetts Institute of Technology - On Behalf of the LIGO Science Collaboration.
Topology comparison RSE vs. SAGNAC using GWINC S. Chelkowski, H. Müller-Ebhardt, S. Hild 21/09/2009 S. ChelkowskiSlide 1ET Workshop, Erice, 10/2009.
Matt Evans, LSC March 2003 (G E)1 Lock Acquisition in LIGO  Who am I? »Matt Evans »Caltech graduate  What is Lock Acquisition? »The process.
LSC-VIRGO joint meeting - Pisa1 Input mirrors thermal lensing effect Frequency modulation PRCL length in Virgo Some results from a Finesse simulation.
1 Mexican-Hat (Flat-Topped) Beams for Advanced LIGO LIGO-G Z Research by Sergey Strigin & Sergey Vyatchanin [MSU] (with advice from Vladimir Braginsky)
LSC-March  LIGO End to End simulation  Lock acquisition design »How to increase the threshold velocity under realistic condition »Hanford 2k simulation.
G TCS installation & results at LLO Update: Systems Telecon 8 th Jan 2014 Aidan Brooks (for the TCS Team) G v1.
40m AOS DRD, G R1 40m Auxiliary Optics Support Design Requirements Document & Conceptual Design Michael Smith 10/18/01 Stray Light Control Initial.
AIGO 2K Australia - Italy Workshop th October th October 2005 Pablo Barriga for AIGO group.
LIGO LaboratoryLIGO-G R Coatings and Their Influence on Thermal Lensing and Compensation in LIGO Phil Willems Coating Workshop, March 21, 2008,
Advanced LIGO Simulation, 6/1/06 Elba G E 1 ✦ LIGO I experience ✦ FP cavity : LIGO I vs AdvLIGO ✦ Simulation tools ✦ Time domain model Advanced.
AdV Thermal Compensation System Viviana Fafone AdV/aLIGO joint technical meeting, February 4, 2004.
LIGO-G D 1 Status of Detector Commissioning LSC Meeting, March 2001 Nergis Mavalvala California Institute of Technology.
G Z Test Mass Butterfly Modes and Alignment Amber Bullington, Stanford University Warren Johnson, Louisiana State University LIGO Livingston Detector.
First DR FFT Results on Advanced LIGO Using Perfect and Imperfect Optics By Ken Ganezer, George Jennings, and Sam Wiley CSUDH LIGO-G Z by Ken.
LSC-Virgo Caltech on March 20, 2008 G E1 AdvLIGO Static Interferometer Simulation AdvLIGO simulation tools  Stationary, frequency domain.
TCS and IFO Properties Dave Ottaway For a lot of people !!!!!! LIGO Lab Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of.
LIGO Laboratory1 Thermal Compensation in LIGO Phil Willems- Caltech Baton Rouge LSC Meeting, March 2007 LIGO-G Z.
Specifications for OMC telescope in AdVirgo R. Gouaty, E. Tournefier Estimation of carrier HOM power at the dark port Constraints on OMC waist and position.
Aligning Advanced Detectors L. Barsotti, M. Evans, P. Fritschel LIGO/MIT Understanding Detector Performance and Ground-Based Detector Designs LIGO-G
ACIGA High Optical Power Test Facility
1 Development schedule of Static IFO Simulation (SIS) Basic building blocks »Framework »mirror, cavity or propagator, detector FP cavity »Simple locking,
17/05/2010A. Rocchi - GWADW Kyoto2 Thermal effects: a brief introduction  In TM, optical power predominantly absorbed by the HR coating and converted.
Effects of as-built Mirrors - analysis using FFT - Hiro Yamamoto, Biplab Bhawal, Xiao Xu, Raghu Dodda (SLU)  LIGO I mirror phase map  FFT tools  Thermal.
LIGO-G Z March 2007, LSC meeting, Osamu Miyakawa 1 Osamu Miyakawa Hiroaki Yamamoto March 21, 2006 LSC meeting Modeling of AdLIGO arm lock acquisition.
LIGO-G D1 Losses in LHO HR Surfaces W. Kells LIGO Laboratory, Caltech With assistance from: H. Radkins, V. Parameshwaraiah, D. Cook, L. Zhang,
ILIAS - Geneve1 Input mirrors thermal lensing effect in Virgo J. Marque.
Thermal Compensation System TCS V. Fafone for the TCS Subsystem.
LIGO-G Z 1 Report of the Optics Working Group to the LSC David Reitze University of Florida March 20, 2003.
Hiro Yamamoto LIGO seminar on Dec. 1st, 2015 LIGO-G aLIGO test masses, revisited  Scattering and loss by test mass  Discrepancy between the measured.
LIGO-G D Core Optics Components (COC) Polishing Pathfinder Kickoff Advanced LIGO Project GariLynn Billingsley Caltech.
40m Optical Systems & Sensing DRD, G R 1 40m Optical Systems and Sensing Design Requirements Document & Conceptual Design Michael Smith 10/18/01.
Hiro Yamamoto LVC March 15 th, 2016, Pasadena CA LIGO-G Mirror scattering loss analysis by integrating sphere measurement  Scattering and loss.
Current Status of Main Interferometer Design Yoichi Aso 2011/2/4, LCGT f2f Meeting.
Input Mode Matching of LCGT 2012/1/5, Yoichi Aso.
Interferometer configurations for Gravitational Wave Detectors
Characterization of Advanced LIGO Core Optics
Advanced LIGO status Hiro Yamamoto LIGO lab/Caltech
First Lessons from the Advanced LIGO Integration Testing
Summary of IFO Spatial Mode Workshop
LIGO Core Optics: a decade of development and experience
Yoichi Aso on behalf of the LCGT ISC Group
Output Mode Cleaners: Introduction for non-experts
The Advanced LIGO Angular Control System (ASC) (Hanford edition)
Design of Stable Power-Recycling Cavities
Commissioning the LIGO detectors
LIGO Core Optics: a decade of development and experience
Thermal Compensation Installation at LHO
Workshop on Gravitational Wave Detectors, IEEE, Rome, October 21, 2004
Modeling of Advanced LIGO with Melody
Scattering Loss Hiro Yamamoto - Caltech LIGO
Homodyne detection: understanding the laser noise amplitude transfer function Jérôme Degallaix Ilias meeting – June 2007.
Presentation transcript:

Hiro Yamamoto GWADW Girdwood, Alaska LIGO-G Beam Splitter in aLIGO Hiro Yamamoto LIGO/Caltech BS02 to BS05? larger BS? BS in aLIGO IFO for near future upgrade  All COC optics of L1 as is except for BS  TCS can correct power terms in ITM substrate –ITM power terms are nullified, to be realized by re- polished CP Performance degradation by geometrical hierarchy Effect of RM3 aperture on the beam beyond BS Effect of ITM inhomogeneity, mixing with BS inhomogeneity Effect of ESD, visible for larger BS Summary 1

Hiro Yamamoto GWADW Girdwood, Alaska LIGO-G Geometry related to performance 2 BS 266mm ESD on CP (modeled by a simple with hole with 266mm aperture) 262mm 230x260mm

Hiro Yamamoto GWADW Girdwood, Alaska LIGO-G Performance degradation of aLIGO IFO 3 T ) no loss at all, with large mirrors. A finite HOM (3.7ppm) looks a nice gaussian so probably the base mode parameter is slightly off. 2) 1) + ETM transmittance 3.7ppm 3) 2) + test mass aperture 326mm, round trip loss by the aperture is 1.94ppm (with 340mm, RTL is 0.6ppm) 4) 3) + 266mm ESD aperture, placed using BS baffle (266mmx266mm) in front of BS 5) 4) + 35ppm arm loss 6) 5) + power recycling mirror and beam splitter loss and transmission. Sum of losses + RM2 transmission is 583ppm 7) 5) + ITM AR side loss, (ITMX loss 206ppm, ITMY loss 330ppm) 8) 5) + 6) and 7), i.e., losses and transmission in the PRC, BS and ITM AR 9) 8) + finite opening angles in PRC (0.79° for PRM2 and 0.615° for PRM3). Among the total HOM of 240ppm, major ones are HG(1,0) of 12ppm and HG(0,2) of 210ppm. 10) 9) + PRM3 aperture 262mm 11) 10) + BS 367.1mm/60mm no baffle 12) 11) + BS baffle (210mmx260mm). Total HOM goes up to 540ppm from 260ppm by clipping using BF baffle. The major is HG(4,0) of 170ppm. 13) 12) with BS baffle facing to X arm offset by 1mm in horizontal direction 14) 12) with BS baffle facing to X arm offset by 2mm in horizontal direction 15) 10) + BS 410mm/67mm with BS baffle (237mmx260mm) 16) 15) with BS baffle facing to X arm offset by 2mm in horizontal direction 17) 10) + BS 450mm/73.5mm with BS baffle (260mmx260mm) : no performance impact by the BS baffle 18) 17) with BS baffle facing to X arm offset by 2mm in horizontal direction 19) 10) + BS 490mm/80mm with BS baffle (260mmx260mm) 20) 19) with BS baffle facing to X arm offset by 2mm in horizontal direction simple lossless realistic lossy Arm loss Finite incident angles on PRM2 and PRM3 37cm BS w/o baffle

Hiro Yamamoto GWADW Girdwood, Alaska LIGO-G BS baffle designed to suppress CD 4 With BS baffle : 7ppm Without BS baffle : 210ppm (d) – (b)

Hiro Yamamoto GWADW Girdwood, Alaska LIGO-G BS size 5 T ) no loss at all, with large mirrors. A finite HOM (3.7ppm) looks a nice gaussian so probably the base mode parameter is slightly off. 2) 1) + ETM transmittance 3.7ppm 3) 2) + test mass aperture 326mm, round trip loss by the aperture is 1.94ppm (with 340mm, RTL is 0.6ppm) 4) 3) + 266mm ESD aperture, placed using BS baffle (266mmx266mm) in front of BS 5) 4) + 35ppm arm loss 6) 5) + power recycling mirror and beam splitter loss and transmission. Sum of losses + RM2 transmission is 583ppm 7) 5) + ITM AR side loss, (ITMX loss 206ppm, ITMY loss 330ppm) 8) 5) + 6) and 7), i.e., losses and transmission in the PRC, BS and ITM AR 9) 8) + finite opening angles in PRC (0.79° for PRM2 and 0.615° for PRM3). Among the total HOM of 240ppm, major ones are HG(1,0) of 12ppm and HG(0,2) of 210ppm. 10) 9) + PRM3 aperture 262mm 11) 10) + BS 367.1mm/60mm no baffle 12) 11) + BS baffle (210mmx260mm). Total HOM goes up to 540ppm from 260ppm by clipping using BF baffle. The major is HG(4,0) of 170ppm. 13) 12) with BS baffle facing to X arm offset by 1mm in horizontal direction 14) 12) with BS baffle facing to X arm offset by 2mm in horizontal direction 15) 10) + BS 410mm/67mm with BS baffle (237mmx260mm) 16) 15) with BS baffle facing to X arm offset by 2mm in horizontal direction 17) 10) + BS 450mm/73.5mm with BS baffle (260mmx260mm) : no performance impact by the BS baffle 18) 17) with BS baffle facing to X arm offset by 2mm in horizontal direction 19) 10) + BS 490mm/80mm with BS baffle (260mmx260mm) 20) 19) with BS baffle facing to X arm offset by 2mm in horizontal direction simple lossless realistic lossy CD nullified by BS baffle Sensitivity on positioning : Baffle aperture(11.5cm) = 2.1 x beam size(5.3cm) 45cm BS keeps the signature of PRM3 aperture 26cm BS RM3ITM 45cm BS Loss: 37cm BS w/ baffle = 600ppm 45cm BS = 100ppm

Hiro Yamamoto GWADW Girdwood, Alaska LIGO-G ITM / BS aberrations : some sees, some not 6 CR (Eout) : don’t see SB (Eref) : see Signal SB (Eleak) : see CR : insensitive SB, Signal : sensitive Mode in recycling cavity Reflected field by arm BS / CR SB Sign flip on resonance

Hiro Yamamoto GWADW Girdwood, Alaska LIGO-G PRG and CD with TCS corrections 7 log11140 CD~400ppm, PRG~45 LLO PRMI TCS L1 dataSimulation

Hiro Yamamoto GWADW Girdwood, Alaska LIGO-G Effect of BS/ITM aberration on CD Through near field propagation: Power distribution does not change Phase can change on reflection/transmission -4.5nm 7.7nm -11.6nm 6.6nm ITM08 / ITMY ITM04 / ITMX ITM transmission map after power term removed 200mm ϕ =160mm BS uniformity needs to be good only in 280mm x 200mm

Hiro Yamamoto GWADW Girdwood, Alaska LIGO-G BS : Three maps and Thermal distortion 9 BS ReflectionsBS Transmissions ITM Transmissions

Hiro Yamamoto GWADW Girdwood, Alaska LIGO-G Effects of BS on CR and SB simulation L1 with all known COC data including reflection and transmission maps of ITM Lock by CR MICH to make dark port darkest 9MHz RF SB within this locked PRFPM Two ITM thermal states  Cold : ITMs have no power in the transmission maps  Optimal : ITMs have 50km lens in the transmission maps Mode is defined by arm, with 50km static lens in ITMs 10

Hiro Yamamoto GWADW Girdwood, Alaska LIGO-G Effects of BS on CR and SB quantitative view 11 No BS (37cm) BS02 (37cm) BS05 (37cm) No BS (45cm) Beam on ITM Cold CR PRG cm CD (ppm) HOM (ppm) SB PRG cm HOM (%)2.3%2.5%3.0%2.2% optimal CR PRG cm CD (ppm) HOM (ppm) SB PRG cm HOM (ppm)

Hiro Yamamoto GWADW Girdwood, Alaska LIGO-G BS Thermal distortion 12 heated no heating

Hiro Yamamoto GWADW Girdwood, Alaska LIGO-G Noises by BS baffle and ESD motions BS baffle motion for 37cm BS  h(f) = 4 x δ ISI (f) ESD motion for 45cm BS  h(f) = 2 x δ CP-ITM (f) Both are smaller by 100 than the requirements 13

Hiro Yamamoto GWADW Girdwood, Alaska LIGO-G Summary BS02 vs BS05  If it ain’t broken, don’t fit it.  Some may improve, but will see some new issue Aperture change from 37cm to 45cm  Improve total loss around BS  Less critical to positioning of beams and mechanical structure Noises due to BS baffle or ESD motions are negligible 14